I don't get it completely: One new blogger gets criticized by old bloggers. Is it to suggest that the old media is no where without fact checkers (who they do have) and recalcitrantly self-satisfied, nonetheless?
I'm not sure the blogosphericals have shown some tremendous ability to understanding their own limitations, to be self-critical, at least in a manner on par with one observer's startling claim that the NYT is "constitutionally incapable" of covering L'affair Plame. Have they been?
"MSM" is probably increasingly a phrase that is orphaned, especially if some blogs now have press secretaries and press passes.
There is much that is staid in the old-platform media and plenty that is mismanaged, but sometimes 'an organization' has its benefits. I'm not so blithly thrilled to see old-platform media lose some of its concentration of power. It's a lot easier to silence unwanted blogosphericals than to take on the legal team of the Washington Post, for instance.
sullylink
