What if we were to develop a more "official" network of citizen reporters to cover events and stop having to interpret the MSM's crumbs.
We could eventually achieve the level of access they have since we will soon be the "mainstream" source of news for most Americans.
Your thoughts?
Basically, the bloggers, and freepers, are citizen reporters, and the good ones do it for the love of it. Whatever money they get from advertisers, or subscribers, don't really pay the bills.
The whole CBS,Rather, "memogate" thing was exposed by unpaid, amateur, "reporters" working through an "unofficial" network that the MSM doesn't have access to.
We could eventually achieve the level of access they have since we will soon be the "mainstream" source of news for most Americans.
This is where things get dicy.
To have "access" you have to have money and influence.
Here's where we get into an area amateur reporters, who "work" for the love of it, and hold a day job, get in over their heads.
If you want objectivity, and impartiality, then you have to stand back and look coldly at the facts. That's hard to do when you're being "courted" by power groups.
Remember the guys online are "reporting" to a whole different demographic then the MSM are. Take Drudge for example; although he gets paid he's mostly detached from the power groups that would love to "control" him. That's hard to do, and it's probably why there's only one Drudge.
Personally, I'd stay with the individuality of the pajamaheeden who will jump on the sins of the MSM just for the fun of it.
It's a tradeoff. You lose the "access" of the organized MSM, but you gain the expertise of individuals who are all connected through their modems. As soon as the MSM errs there are hundreds of amateur reporters pointing out the mistakes.
But, don't forget that the web is still evolving, and where, when, and how it replaces the MSM is still down the road a bit.