[breakingnews]

Thanks bruce, for bringing to light a larger point in the discussion.

I think this whole situation has to do mostly with coming to terms with reality. People have opinions and they're going to show, and with so much open interpretation out there you're going to believe what you want to think.

I don't agree entirely that mainstream media has lost all of its credibility, but I especially don't think that readers can turn to the mass of blogs out there as "credible" news sources, or at least more credible than professional outlets.

Blogs are viral webs of opinions based on opinions based on more opinions. It's exhausting to read through thousands of words of mudslinging to find whatever "truth" you're looking for, and, as I think UT pointed out early on, there is a blog out there for you, however left, right, up or down you lean. Filters might work for educated readers, but I think - for at least the next 10-20 years or so - the average person isn't going to exert that kind of effort. Most of those who do will find two or three blogs that complement their opinions and feed bullshit from there anyway.

Bloggers challenge the media because they can do things the pro outlets can't. They can openly preach an agenda, they can be inflammatory, they can expand on hypotheticals based solely on rumors. They are also completely at liberty to - and often do - omit facts or whatever that don't work in their favor. Suddenly that's become a more respected form of news analysis? I struggle with that. But is it needed to advance discussion? Of course.

Yes, editorial crusading is awful, and mainstream media (mostly TV) needs lots of retooling. The errors and bias are committed by relatively few, and it's usually in the sake of trying to get a scoop. But don't think the major outlets aren't there to challenge each other, too - trust me, I hear plenty every day about doing what it takes to beat the big papers and wire services by proving that their facts are inaccurate or downright wrong.