I don't know if there's a coordinated effort or just a coincidence but there was an anti-blog editorial in my local paper recently.

The jist was that blogs don't have editors and are unreliable, so you should keep on trusting big media and don't you even think about looking behind that curtain.

It came off as phony and desperate, and bordered on comedy. Especially when you consider that editors don't seem to do big papers a whole lot of good...or when the adgenda is calling the shots over the editor's heads.

Editors? Who watches the editors of papers? They've been screwing up a LOT.

All a blog reader needs to do is read several prominent blogs that do not agree.

They watch eachother far more fiercely and occurently than any editor.

Sheesh.

Thus spaketh Jones:
"Blogging is especially amenable to introducing negative information into the news stream and for circulating rumors as fact."

Yeah, like Wilson's "Bush lied about Iraqi Uranium purchases" horsepuckey that the mainstream press refused to touch, but that bloggers pushed from the begining.

Feh. He's mad because he's lost his monopoly of injecting negative ideas that fit his biases.