Getting written work published in traditional media sources and scholarly journals has always been a prerequisite for those aspiring for a career in the ivory tower as a college professor. Likewise, many of the top institutions expect doctoral candidates to demonstrate the ability to produce written work and research that is recognized as a significant contribution to the field.
But written work that is deemed acceptable to the ivory tower does not neccessarily mean it is any better than other writing on nontraditional sources of media. Rather, it means that the academic establishment has signed off on the reputation/prestige of the particular outlet, and that the submission has been sufficiently vetted through a "peer review" or similar process.
That is all fine with me, and I can respect the need for academic institutions to preserve the integrity of individual research/ contributions to the field. But I've often wondered if the ivory tower thinks less of the writing that takes place on non-traditional sources such as webjournals, blogs, and even forums like Cyburbia. IMO, some of the best writing in the field of urban planning happens in these places (Cyburbia in particular), although the authors will probably never gain acknowledgement for it or be able to put it on their resumes.
So what say you Cyburbia? Is there an inherent bias against non-traditional online writing forms among those in academia? Would a prolific blogger stand a chance against someone who has written a few articles in JAPA when it came to an admission decision at an ivy league planning school?