Got a call the other day from a reader wanting to know why The News & Observer had downplayed the resignation of CNN news chief Eason Jordan. Jordan, you'll recall, stirred controversy with his reported assertion that the U.S. military had deliberately targeted and killed journalists in Iraq.

What was unusual about the story is that the news of Jordan's remarks was reported first by a blogger -- a lone wolf Internet journalist -- and the story was fanned into controversy by other bloggers. The traditional media took a while to catch up. Several readers contacted me while the story was brewing, wanting to know why The N&O hadn't reported it.

There are several issues at play here -- the importance of the Jordan story, the truth of what he actually said. But most intriguing is the increasing power of the "blogosphere," as the cyberjournalists have come to be called, in informing the public, shaping public policy and influencing the "mainstream media" or MSM. Eason's downfall comes on the heels of the blogger-powered calling to account of Dan Rather and CBS and, more recently, the unmasking of a conservative blogger posing as a real journalist at White House press briefings. He was identified by liberal bloggers.

Do we need to define blogger? For those still untethered to the Internet, they are folks with their own Web sites (Weblogs, hence blog) who set themselves up as sources of information and commentary. Most famous is the Drudge Report, which claims 9 million daily users, but there are untold numbers of small bloggers out there offering their wisdom to the growing Internet audience.

Regarding the Jordan affair, The N&O ran two stories, on Feb. 9 and Feb. 12, both inside the paper. The reason the newspaper didn't run more stories was that its wire services didn't provide much coverage.

Did The N&O underplay the story? I don't think so. It's not front-page news in Raleigh, North Carolina, that a cable news executive has been forced to resign over remarks that he may or may not have made (that's still in dispute.). The story did make front pages of The New York Times and The Journal-Constitution in Atlanta, CNN's hometown, but at few papers elsewhere.

Whatever its merits, the Jordan story is an apt illustration of the growing influence of bloggers on traditional media. Bloggers flushed out the story -- as they did the Rather and White House stories and the MSM played catch-up.

This causes problems for newspapers, because newspapers and bloggers aren't playing by the same rules. Bloggers can and do rush online instantly with "news" that they haven't checked out themselves, and the standards of reporting that they adhere to, if any, are suspect.

Example: Last week's Drudge Report attacked Oscar awards host Chris Rock with this reporting: "Veteran members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have grown concerned over the choice of Chris Rock to represent the Academy before a worldwide audience, well-placed insiders claim. 'This is not who we are,' said one top source from Los Angeles."

Reputable newspapers wouldn't hang such a public trashing on unnamed sources. But that kind of reporting does pressure journalism standards, and one effect might be the kind of sloppy journalism we saw in the Rather affair -- rush onto the air, ignore standards, deny error.

Bloggers also represent a challenge to newspapers' traditional role as gatekeepers of information because bloggers can bypass newspapers to reach their audiences. Newspapers have prided themselves on being the final arbiter of what is news -- which has fed a perception of arrogance -- but blogging has changed that gatekeeper function, if it ever really existed.

Next page >