In the course of the argument I coined a term I don’t think I stole from anyone: the Passionate Press. When I used the term – I was envisioning the masses that have the potential to become ‘the media’ given outlets like the Reporter (and NowPublic.com and others).

Right now, though, the term probably best applies to those special folks who report on the world around them because they are driven to – not because they’re paid to. Though they may well be paid for their efforts. This is in contrast to the ‘Professional Press’ that can and will report on anything their editors tell them to. The two are probably not mutually exclusive.

While the Passionate Press would now be primarily bloggers – they have their roots in the pamphleteers of the 19th century – the writers of the Federalist Papers, for example. Today, I think of Erin Kotecki Vest and Dave Winer (and many others) as members of the Passionate Press covering the US election.

It’s tempting to say that the Passionate Press is merely a synonym of ‘the blogosphere’ but I think it is a sub-set with certain characteristics – I’m just not sure what they are.

I’m trying to decide if I’m on to something with this ‘Passionate Press’ thing or if I’m just making up a term for the sake of it.

Thoughts?

Related posts:

1. Is The Press Too Objective?
2. An Online Newspaper Makes a Mid-Course Correction