Earlier this month I posted a question on the mb bulletin boards: journalism is in need of a "backbone transplant," according to Dan Rather. However, all journalists don't have access to the President, or even our Senators, with a large audience the way Tim Russert or the White House correspondent at the Times might. So is this challenge really only meant for journalists with a certain amount of access? How can the 'little guy' work harder in "questioning powerful leaders, more facts (and less speculation), more money and time from publishers, and more international coverage."?

Readers had some interesting thoughts:

Some folks argued that journalists can't be afraid to instill that backbone, no matter at what level they're reporting.

"There are a lot of pressures on the newspaper industry that are making Fourth Estate, real investigative reporting difficult today.... Media consolidation of the industry, for starters. I think independent journalists doing work online (often for free) are carrying this torch," said a poster. "The prestigious weeklies and monthlies seem to afford their reporters time and resources to tackle investigative work."

"Anyone, no matter what their stature or experience, can ''make a difference'' but not accepting pat answers, by doing the legwork, and by asking the follow-up questions.," wrote another poster. "Covering the local school board meeting should demand the same skills as covering the Joint Chiefs."

"A reporter at the Springfield, Mo. daily isn't going to bring down the White House, but it is possible for reporters to check and balance local governments, informing citizens of what's going on in their constituency," added another. Not everyone is Judith Miller, with access to the powerful folks in Washington. Keeping tabs on what the village mayor does is something in itself. No government official has the privilege to abuse his or her powers, be it in the Capitol or Small Town, USA. Reporters all over have the ability to monitor this."

Another mentioned the possibility of blogging as a way 'little guy' writers can play a role in the checks and balances. "I think the role of the local reporter/media is integral to community change on all levels. It's really exciting to work on some small court story that blows up a little town, I think. The best scandals probably happen there! Capote, the movie about the writing of a book in Kansas, is a great example. But it's very self-limiting in the end, and limited timewise, because eventually all the sources are people you know and they start wanting favors. Two things I think play into this discussion, one, the increasing difficulty of getting information - Plame case. And the impact of blogs, who effectively are filling the gap where say the low level reporter (and I don't consider them as such, at all) or community level or suburban etc. can't access the stories or the people. Blogs are the knee jerk response to being shut out of the discourse. Or whatever you want to call it. Newspapers' revenues are being cut into by blogs. Blogs have damaged journalism and blogs also function to keep journalism in check. By exposing shit that reporters miss. Pardon my language."

There were some that doubted the true impact blogs have on journalism: "I agree that backbone starts at the most local levels of journalism, but I have to snort at the notion that blogs undercut big media. I think most thinking people recognize blogs for what they are: opinion, and repeating not reporting."

And another poster added emphatically (and correctly) that the best investigative reporter, no matter what level, is nowhere without an editor willing to take chances. "Surviving the food chain of jobs -- all of them? -- that don't value access is the other half of this battle. You need internal street cred and rabbis as much as you need access to great stories. If your editors blow off your stories or downplay them, your access and credibility are also damaged because sources have no reason to tell you stuff that doesn't get used -- then, quite reasonably, they go to your competitor(s). If they use it and play it up, you now also look stupid/lazy when you've actually hit internal roadblocks. Regular folks with important stories are desperate to find reporters who are smart and willing to do the dirty work of holding the powerful to account. It can prove absurdly difficult to get something into print/air while also knowing what it can mean to the people whose lives it affects. Which is worse -- not having access or not having the results of your hard-won access used? The disconnect between what they need/want/hope for from us as an additional voice speaking truth to power, and what your employer chooses to use, can be instructive. No one, and Wall Street is holding newspapers' feet to the 20-30% profit margin fire, is eager to do anything to alienate advertisers. If Koppel and his ilk enjoy and revel in their putative power, they are also secure in knowing they have become financially-valuable franchises and they keep their jobs precisely by Being Tough. How to accumulate that power, or acquire it at much lower levels of pay/visibility, remains the challenge. It's an easy out to assume no one but they has this ability. To some degree, it's what got them, a la Anderson Cooper, up the ladder in the first place."

"You can't, it's true, implant tenacity and the willingness to piss some powerful people off to get to a good, or great story. But you can also declaw the most motivated and skilled reporters by refusing to run the goods when they bring them in -- having used their backbone and all their other anatomy -- second-guessing them from the total cocoon of the newsroom and what they hear/read from Big Name Media, or their innate sense of superiority. Watch that backbone, and confidence shrink, when your bosses don't listen to or trust the reporter on the ground. I have seen intellectual osteoporosis, (i.e the loss of one's professional backbone, inch by inch), happen around me in some very experienced people whose instincts are sound and skills excellent, but who get little to no chance to exercise them -- and who, jaded and fed up, give up and do the bare minimum while no one even seems to notice the difference. Great editors give reporters the room, time and resources to get great stuff, then they actually run the stories. It may not need a lot of time or a lot of money. Maybe it means fighting for the story in the budget meeting and spending a little political capital, or bumping an ad. Great editors are also decisive and trust their gut as well as yours. I think they are rare.

"I admire and applaud any reporter determined to keep their spine stiffened. Only once in my 30-year career have I seen an editor -- paradoxically to those who snub ''women's mags'' -- fight like a lion to keep, uncut, a story of mine, (investigating animal testing of cosmetics and other products that filled her pages) one she knew would piss off major advertisers in her controlled-circ. national women's magazine. We kept most of it, but I can't imagine many editors even taking that stand. It happened very early in my career, a powerful lesson that money talks and generally has the loudest voice in the room."

By no means was this is a definitive discussion, nor an extremely heartening one: journalists without a certain amount of cachet risk alienating their sources, editors and readership when determined to aggressively question facts and leaders: it's an uphill battle. However, it's not an impossible one, and while the question of blogs and their influence upon the media will still be told, it's an issue that can't be ignored.