I have been a journalist for over three decades now, and a blogger for almost five.

Want to know the difference between the two?

Bloggers admit mistakes.

Why is that? Simple.

1. News cycles.
   
2. Authority.

The first is an outgrowth of journalism's print origins. Mistakes can't be corrected until the next print run, so you avoid acknowledging them until you have to, and then hide the admission. This is so as not to waste space (or in the case of broadcasting, air-time).

The second? Mistakes are a firing offense. I was fired from a job for making simple mistakes, and I don't question it. I would have been much better-off doing fewer stories, and doing them perfectly, than trying to be a one-man staff and missing stuff.

So why is blogging different?

1. Feedback. If you're a real blog you allow comments, and commenters are going to point out your mistakes. Or they are going to go to their own blogs and laugh at your mistakes. Or they're going to your competitor's blog and laugh at you. I've learned here, through hard experience, that you apologize fast, you do it within the offending item, and you apologize personally to everyone who complains. This is the opposite of the behavior "journalists" think protects credibility, but it works.

2. Cost. Bits are free. Putting some bits at the top of a mistake and pointing it out, or using strikethroughs to indicate something is wrong, costs nothing in republishing costs. It's quick, it's easy, and it brings a nice cleansing feeling.

I took these lessons to heart yesterday, at another blog I run, when I got caught reprinting a mistake from a trade publisher. The moment I learned my mistake I corrected it, and later wrote a second item to discuss it. The first response? "Hey, we all make mistakesI should know ;)."

Frankly, speaking from the vantage point of three decades of experience, I would say advantage blogosphere. And journalism will, as a profession, remain behind the eight-ball until they acknowledge this fact.