A bunch of ag reporters (including one of ours) are at a media event in Johnston, Iowa (near Des Moines), hosted by Pioneer (big ag company). Not sure how many of the reporters were blogging the event but a couple for sure. As I watched the blogs I started wondering, what is the “best” medium for covering an event like this.

While highly unlikely that a broadcast station (radio or TV) or network would cover a day-long event live…would that, in fact, be better coverage? Probably the closest thing to being there yourself but unless they put the video/audio online for later, on-demand acess (and did so almost immediately)…you’d have to catch it live or miss it completely. And live broadast coverage (TV or radio) would offer little opportunity for some context and perspective by the reporter covering the event.

Is it even remotely possible that a really well-done blog (with still images, video, audio, RSS feed, etc etc etc) could have advantages over traditonal live coverage of the event? My heart wants to say “no way,” but my head is saying, “maybe.”

I’ve been doing radio for almost 35 years and blogging for just four and this just blows my mind. And I could be missing something here. For example, the print reporter might argue that his/her 1,000 word story in tomorrow’s (or the day after) newspaper/magazine offers greater depth and insight and detail than a few short blog posts. Good point.

A TV guy might point out that his/her well-edited, high quality video package on the evening news is far superior to a few minutes of poorly-lighted video from a camcorder. True enough.

I’m not sure what the technical or content advantages radio has in this scenerio. I’ll get back to you.

This sounds heretical –more blog hype– until you actually watch a first-rate blogger cover an event and compare that to the more traditional media. And in the end, it will be the public that decides where to get the latest/best info.