I am traditionalist enough to expect that a library contains books, not "audio-visual materials," and I grew up reading newspapers and news magazines. They still have a certain cachet in my mind, and against my logical judgement I still emotionally feel it's cooler to get written up in Newsweek than on Instapundit.

But that traditionalism includes a multitude of old-fashioned notions about fighting fair. The MSM has lost me over the years not because they have gotten it wrong so often (though they have, increasingly), but because they lay claim to objectivity and then engage in weaselly argument-by-sneer. They won't have me back. When I read from the MSM at all now, it's in their online versions. Even that is becoming rarer, because of their pretensions of registering to become worthy of reading their news.

Talk about objectivity - pretty hard to slant this quote to say blogs lack influence. I'm surprised he didn't ignore it and get some more.

"Our main influence, if we have any, is indirect," says Josh Chafetz, who writes political commentary at Oxblog.blogspot.com. "It's through congressional staffers who read us — we have a number of readers there — or people in the media who read us."

What struck me about this article was not MSM's low opinion of the blogs, that is to be expected, but the comments by Somerby of the Daily Howler. He sounds like he has an ax to grind with someone, or was just jerking the reporter's chain. I don't visit The Daily Howler, but I will check it out to see what his problem might be.

To Ass't. Idiot; I use Nonyer Bidnus, Ponderosa Ranch, Nevada.

Bloggers are more diverse, intellectually and politically, than the mainstream media which is why they often make more interesting reading than syndicated op-ed columnists. Columns have to be kept within the bounds of what the professional journalistic culture than editors are immersed in deems to be accceptable, blogs are freer.

Of course most blogs are junk but we're talking about the ones that are read by more than the author's immediate family and a handful of internet " friends".

Bloggers are more diverse, intellectually and politically, than the mainstream media which is why they often make more interesting reading than syndicated op-ed columnists. Columns have to be kept within the bounds of what the professional journalistic culture that editors are immersed in deems to be accceptable, blogs are freer.

Of course most blogs are junk but we're talking about the ones that are read by more than the author's immediate family and a handful of internet " friends".

I'm eagerly waiting for the first blog mergers to take place. There's a Turner, a Diller or a Murdoch somewhere in the blogosphere.

Maybe it's already happened and there's no way to really find out.

The bottom line here is something I wrote to, just yesterday, in response to a Billy Beck posting, which in it's turn was in response to a Glenn Reynolds post. says Beck:

"Glenn Reynolds, in the item linked below, asks, "Question: Was the press more professional decades ago, or was it just harder to tell when they cheated?"

And Beck responds to the question, saying;

Would I be a crashing bore if I mentioned the name of Walter Duranty?

To which I added>>>

"He goes on to compare, favorably, the internet, to the ground shift that occurred at Gutenberg.

Now, this is an interesting comparison. And he's right, so far, I think;

The reaction of the Mainstream Press is perhaps the biggest indication of this situation. And that worried reaction, at least from their viewpoint, is perhaps justified. A look at the situation John Kerry finds himself in just now is instructive; Can you imagine that the press, and it's thinly veiled support for Kerry, would have found itself being routed around, with the result being Kerry behind in the polling, if the net in general, and Blogs in particular, didn't exist?

I know I can't."

I can't make the argument much shorter han it is at my place, given the context that discussion was in... and yet it does seem to tie in directly with Dan's points. So rather than posting the whole thing, I'll offer a link for discussion...

In the post, I submit that the MSM has lost the authority it once had because of the biased ABUSE of that authority.

Is one medium of greater value than the other...bloggers over the MSM?

Yes and no... only insofar as they ahve not abused the authority granted them originally. I supose the expectations for bloggers is lower than it was for the press. Irony abounds; itwas the MSM themsleves who set that expectation, and then failed on it. And how would it be now, ad the MSM not so failed? Would blogs and other online sources like Drudge, be doing so well if they had not?

"conduct a mental experiment -- replace the word 'blogosphere' with 'New York Times op-ed columnists' or 'David Broder. See if the criticism[s]... still hold up."

Of course it does, every time. That's because bloggers are nothing more than op-ed columnists.

Op-eds in open discussion. That's different.