Why can’t both sides just understand that one wouldn’t be nearly as effective without the other, and that blogging–despite how much fun it is–would be nowhere without the “mainstream” reporters who, actually, manage to get most of their stories correct (albeit without necessarily agreeing with your particular viewpoint)?
That’s the usual symbiotic template–reporters report, bloggers opine. But on the Eason Jordan story, bloggers like Abovitz, Sisyphean Musings and Michelle Malkin did actual reporting, while the New York Times kind of just sat there for two weeks, no? … Of course, when it was all over the Times did deploy three reporters who managed to a) mislead readers as to Jeff Jarvis’ stance and b) raise fears about the “growing power of rampant, unedited dialogue.”
Makes you wonder sometimes who the drooling morons are.