This reads like a contradiction in terms, doesn't it?

Blogging is instant publishing. Part of the idea is that you're getting a raw feed.

But in fact most blogs are edited. Because most blogs are produced with words.

You don't need Microsoft Word to edit a blog. I am editing this in the blogging window. But for most people, coherence requires a bit of editing. You need to step back, put things in a proper order for the reader, and link what you've gotten so it makes sense as a story told, rather than a story experienced.

You can see this clearly when you see the liveblog of an event. Last year's conventions are a bad example. Because the stage happenings were broadcast there was no need to type what was said and put it out. Bloggers reverted to their normal role there of looking for "inside" stories, and wound up as near-clones of their "big media" counterparts, only without as many sources. They edited on-the-fly to create coherence.

What does this say about other types of blogging, using bigger files like audio (audblogging), mobile phones (moblogging) or video (vidblogging).

There are three alternatives here. Most moblogs today accept incoherence. The reader has to create the context, either by knowing the background or filling in the blanks of what's being blogged.

The two other ways of doing this are to edit in the field, or to edit backstage.

Most broadcasters who use a version of blogging technique today are editing in the field. A reporter with a satellite dish aims it at the shooting, and describes what's outside the frame. The editor (or anchor) in the studio asks questions, adds background, and cuts to commercial.

Another way to make what you're getting coherent is to edit it in the field. Most liveblogs are edited in this way, with the writer giving corrections to most errors in real-time. Since we now have audio editing tools appearing on mobile phones, this should become possible there, too.

But field editing is always going to be limited by two factors, form factor and time.

Mobile phones aren't designed to be editing bays. So maybe you haul a laptop's power, and a laptop's accessories, in some sort of backback, with a tray in front of you so you can create your piece "in situ" (on site).

But even if you had the perfect interface you would still find the problem of time. You are just too busy shooting, or experiencing, the story in the field to give it context and catch the great pictures at the same time.

So we are left with something resembling the broadcast model. Along with its attendant costs. Or you go back to blogging's "past" (uh, last year), where we "reported" from the equivalent of an editing studio, as I'm doing now.

Does this mean that blogging won't really change journalism at all? No. There are huge opportunities here, to cover (for instance) local events in a cost-effective way, to bring in new voices, and to drive costs to the floor so you can make a living for everyone within a limited business model.

I once worked for the Comdex show dailies, and if they were still in business they would have figured this out (I'd hope). Or some third party would have figured it out and sold the service to them. You get a team together, you give them the tools, you edit the feed from the floor, and you deliver a "show daily" that is in fact a blog, which is organized on the back-end as a database, and sold (as part of the show package) on a DVD after the event.

You can do the same thing with other "news events" that have the decency to sit still -- sporting events, courtroom dramas, concerts. (Most of what passes for news today stays in place.) Then you can contract with freelancers in an area -- anyone with a camera or a microphone or a typewriter -- to cover unexpected events.

In this way journalism will evolve. It will become more pro-am, with more freelancers. More like that silly 1980s show Max Headroom (hopefully without that annoying Matt Frewer). (Ten points to whoever gets the joke first.)

But it will evolve. And that evolution has just begun.