From: "Mark" 


"Jeff Shultz"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.01.21.03.01.45.824555{at}shultzinfosystems.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:42:00 -0500, Robert Comer wrote:
>
>> It isn't just MSM that I read (and in fact, I usually avoid MSM as well
>> after the initial story) -- I tend to follow media outlets from many
>> different countries, and that's how I decide on things.
>>
>> Blogs are a different story, these are things not tied to anything that
>> would make me want to trust them.  They can say whatever they want, truth
>> or not, and nobody is going to know the difference.
>>
>
> Dan Rather would love you.

Had they forged the documents in 2000, Gore would be President now, as
there was no "blogosphere" to speak of at that time -- that alone
endears the bloggers to me for all time. I do worry though, about what
would have happened this time had CBS not put the documents up on their Web
site? How would they have been taken down if they hadn't? 

> Actually the people writing the blogs tend to watch each other - and will
> correct each other as needed.

As needed, and at light speed. Those blogs that are not credible, are not
taken seriously and have, or soon won't, no traffic. It occurs to me that
Bob is thinking "personal web log" when he thinks of blogs
without acknowledging (or perhaps realizing) that it's a much bigger thing
than people spilling their personal guts in public as it was when the name
"blog" first hit the scene.

Bottom-line: I'd rather read the take of an acknowledged liberal like Josh
(TPM) and disagree with almost everything he says, than blindly accept a
NYTimes story with a reporter dancing around pretending to be unbiased.
Which is not to say that we don't need the NYTimes et. al., to provide
grist for the mill -- for now, and the foreseeable future anyway.


--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5