Tim Montgomerie of 18 Doughty Street and Conservative Home was asked about a concern that some people might have about the blogosphere — that people who don’t actually know very much about what they’re writing about can gain a lot of influence. Montgomerie responded by saying that the bloggers that got the most attention were the people who did know something about what they’re writing about.

When I was interviewed for a piece on Radio Scotland last year, I also suggested that the most successful bloggers were people who probably would have been well-known campaigners or journalists anyway (although as I recall, this bit wasn’t used in the broadcast). I cited Iain Dale as an example. His blog is one of the biggest around at the moment, and he was clearly a big figure on the political scene before blogging took off.

Will Patterson then spoiled the whole illusion by going on to suggest that I am one of the bloggers that everybody reads. Well I have to hold my hands up and say that I am one of those bloggers who don’t really know much about what they’re writing about.

Clearly, the idea that “those who do know” are the only successful (or even worthwhile) bloggers is only part of the story about blogs. If it were the case that big names are the only important ones, citizen journalism wouldn’t be seen as important and The Long Tail wouldn’t exist in the blogosphere.

To ask for bloggers to be expert policy analysts misses the big point about blogging, which is that any old Joe Blogs can get out and express his opinion to a wide audience. “How boring,” you might think — and you might be right. I find it absurd that anybody should read my blog. I am only 20 for a start, and I’m a very mundane person. I have almost no life experience and I’m certainly not in any position to be telling Mr X to do y.

But that’s not the point. If you say, “well, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, so why should his opinions matter?”, then you might as well throw the whole idea of liberal democracy out of the window. The great thing about blogging is that it is ordinary people — some more expert than others — who are getting their thoughts out there in the open.

I used to struggle to understand why I like blogs so much while I’ve ended up getting less and less of my news via traditional outlets. Recently it struck me. It is common for people to say that all politicians are lying, spinning or toeing the party line. The reason they do this, of course, is that they do not appear on the news in a personal capacity — they do so as a representative of their political party. Of course they will be expected to toe the party line. They would probably be out of a job if they didn’t.

But the same goes for everybody that appears on the news. If it isn’t a politician it will be somebody representing some other organisation — a pressure group, a trade union, a business, whatever. Even when I or Will P or any other bloggers crop up on the news, it is only in our capacity as representatives of (or experts on) the blogosphere.

I’ll sit there watching the news thinking, “can I really believe this person?” They are all experts in their field for sure. But they are also in their ivory towers, seeing things from their blinkered perspectives. Isn’t it strange that ordinary people — who, by definition, make up the vast majority of the population — are seldom properly represented in the mainstream media apart from in some uncomfortable ‘Speak Your Brains’ segment?

The fact that ordinary people who don’t necessarily have an agenda to push or a party line to toe are gaining some influence should be seen as refreshing, not bothersome. I know I’d much rather read the opinions of ordinary people rather than somebody with an agenda to push. I think most other people do as well. Like I said, I am a mundane person and certainly not in a position to be an expert on anything. But plenty of people still read my blog.

Mark Lawson, in an article he wrote having obviously only ever read about half a dozen blogs in his life, once said that:

At its worst, blogworld most resembles a radio phone-in for leftwing men but without a Victoria Derbyshire or Brian Hayes to interrupt the callers who lose the thread and start to free-associate.

This is part of the problem a lot of bloggers have with the “mainstream media”. ‘Ordinary people need to know their place, and we journalists have to be there to let them know when to shut up.’ So you have an letters page in the newspaper which is supposed to represent the views of the ordinary readers — which it does, but only at the say so of an editor. And you have radio phone-in shows where ordinary listeners are often summarily cut off in their prime.

A lot of the people who phone up a radio station do often deserve to be cut off. But here is another magical thing about blogging. We bloggers are having proper debates. We don’t have to worry about squeezing our point in before the news. If somebody disagrees with us they can simply respond either in the comments or on their own blogs.

Soon enough you find out who knows what they’re talking about and who doesn’t. Poorly-formed opinions have to be revised as they are challenged by others. What we have is the wisdom of crowds. Even though many (but by no means all) of us may not be experts, bad ideas soon get weeded out. This is proper, adult (usually) discussion between — whisper it quietly — ordinary people.

That should be embraced, not snootily ridiculed.

…I do not believe we are more than two or three elections away from the moment when some commercial channels will be ready to proclaim: “We win it for Tony, Dave, Ming (or whoever).”

Grade notes the difference in culture between the print media and broadcasters:

In the UK, we have developed quite different expectations of different media. With broadcasting, balance and impartiality have been statutory requirements: democracy is judged to be served by the absence of bias and partisan editorial agendas. For print, with its long history of struggle against state censorship, democracy is seen to be served by freedom of expression, and is characterised by partisan editorialising.

Television channels are still fairly heavily regulated by Ofcom. This is designed to keep television news impartial, which is said to ensure a healthy democracy. But were newspapers to be regulated in this way it would be rightly called an undemocratic suppression of free speech.

It might seem like a discrepancy. But up until recently, broadcasters were part of a privileged elite. A television channel could have a lot of power. You don’t have to go back far to find an era where the UK had only three and a half channels. People would be stuck with what they were fed. Television audiences of over 20 million, although almost unheard of today, were not that unusual back then.

A license to broadcast was a powerful thing to have. It was a privilege, and with that privilege came responsibilities. As such it was reasonable to regulate these channels’ news output. Otherwise just two or three companies would have had a ridiculous amount of influence over the electorate.

It was very different with newspapers. In theory, anybody could publish a newspaper. It certainly had fewer barriers to entry than broadcasting did. As such, press freedoms were cherished. A diversity of opinions unimaginable to broadcasting was available in print.

Today it’s a very different story. In just a few years it will be the norm for every television owner to have access to a few dozen different channels. There are hundreds available on Sky. It is now cheaper to run some television stations than it is to publish a magazine. And there are certainly more television channels than there are national newspapers.

The traditional analogue terrestrial channels are seeing audiences dwindle. The BBC, ITN, even Sky are all becoming less powerful. Competition has increased greatly. Viewers have so many choices, and broadcasting is no longer so much of a privilege. Yes, many of the new channels have been set up by the traditional broadcasters — but this is more of a damage limitation exercise than anything else.

But it’s not just the advent of digital television that is giving the traditional media companies food for thought. A far bigger problem is being posed by the internet. Young people spend far more time on websites like YouTube and MySpace than watching television. We live in an age where the world seems to be increasingly run by large, soulless corporations. But the internet is making those large, soulless corporations run scared.

Viacom (MTV) is particularly miffed that Generation MTV is fizzling out and almost bought Bebo to try and stay hip (it laucnhed MTV Flux instead). Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation bought MySpace after being slow off the mark to adapt to a new world in love with the internet. Most strangely of all, ITV bought Friends Reunited.

But in terms of news coverage, the emergence of citizen journalism should usher in a new era of free speech in broadcasting. With the advent of vlogging and websites like YouTube, who is to say what is and isn’t broadcasting? It is conceivable that one day soon there will be a blogger or a vlogger who is just as influential as somebody on the television.

For some governments, this means that you should regulate citizen journalists in the same way as you would regulate broadcasters. This year in Singapore the government attempted to gag bloggers during the election campaign. The Indian government also ordered ISPs to block popular blogging sites Blogspot, Typepad and Geocities. Two years ago, French authorities famously arrested a blogger for criticising the city mayor. Does that not all sound like a suppression of free speech?

Citizen journalism has created a new category of person somewhere in between the traditional journalist and the pub ranter. It’s a grey area. We would expect the traditional journalist to adhere to certain standards; we certainly would not expect the pub ranter to. So what should we expect the citizen journalist to do?

People in this arena are becoming increasingly ambitious. There will soon be the launch of a new internet television channel, 18 Doughty Street. Those involved are already among the most successful bloggers around. If 18 Doughty Street succeeds (still a big ‘if’, of course), traditional media companies will have to take notice.

As I said, the reason broadcasters are regulated is because they were in a privileged position. But they are now no longer in such a privileged position. We can get our news from a growing number of different outlets. Today, anybody can write an article or make a film and reach a large audience. There is now genuine competition in the media. There will always be a place for the mainstream media, but they are surely becoming less powerful.

Soon enough Ofcom’s impartiality regulations will look like an anachronism. Soon it should be time to wave goodbye to the impartiality regulations in favour of freedom of speech. Of course, this doesn’t mean that every news outlet would have to become a Fox- or Independent-style ‘views’ outlet. Broadcasters — particularly the BBC — will always want to appear unbiased. There probably isn’t much of an appetite in the UK for a Fox News-style channel — although I can see an opinionated channel based on The Sun being successful.

The point is that we are now lucky enough to be in a position where we have pretty much unlimited access to as many different opinions as we want. So it’s time to celebrate this diversity instead of suppressing it. Murdoch wants to launch a Fox-style channel in the UK? Why not let him? There’ll be thousands of citizen journalists ready to challenge.