Mostly what I see in the major media is a load of some reporter's opinion/slant on the facts they are reporting. It is there in the tone of voice, and the "but this" and "but that", and the gratuitous insertion of some bad news along with a snippet of good just to be "balanced", and the guotes from dunderhead "experts" to insert the liberal spin. I just quit my local paper, which more and more had only ads and wire stories from AP that I read yesterday on here and editorials from the New York Times that were also on here if I had any desire to read them, which I usually don't. Why a local paper in conservative Utah would think I would be intersted in what M. Doud had to say is a stumper.
Peggy thinks she is one of the ones who gets it talking to those who don't, but Peggy actually doesn't quite get it either.
There is nothing about any of these "events" she mentions that a group of bloggers cannot cover -- immediate and on the spot, with video. It is not that the MSM has a rival and must now adapt. No, it is that the internet has made the journalism degree and the editor UNECESSARY.
The Dan Rathers will say "but who will do quality control on the information? There has to be an editor!" Quality control comes from COMPETING bloggers, you dolts.
This revolution, which still has years to work out, will be bigger than even Peggy sees.