Blogs - Mainstream Media clueless

The New York Times is clueless.

But the blogosphere's tendency toward crackpot theorizing and political smack down could not be suppressed for long.

The BBC still don't get it.

The BBC are quick to point out how you can get into trouble by blogging about your work and cite an airline stewardess who lost her job because of her blog.

They give other examples of people blogging about the daily grind of their job and some of the legal implications.


The Guardian doesn't quite get it either.

In short: this wasn’t a few political hacks talking to each other. For the first time, powerful coverage of a huge news event was not brought to you purely by established media. An army of “citizen journalists” played a new role, perhaps all the more vital considering the effect vivid reportage, online and off, has had on the subsequent fundraising efforts.

For the first time?! None of these dinosaurs even mentioned Dan Rather and Rathergate or the UN oil for food program scandal currently rocking the UN. Swift Boat Veterans - nope, nada. Kerry and Christmas in Cambodia? Nope.

So, why are these dinosaurs giving us any air time at all now? The Guardian gives us one reason.

The impact for blogs? It lies in the new reach they have gained. They were already doing quite well – a survey just published in the US finds that eight million adults had blogs in the US last year, and that their readership had jumped by 58% in 2004. Probably driven by the huge popularity of political blogs in the runup to the US presidential election, the Pew report says: “By the end of 2004 blogs had established themselves as a key part of online culture.”

Yes, and those millions of bloggers are fact checking your ass MSM for that huge readership. We are also reporting all the news you refuse to report and exposing your bias.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------