The downside of MSM (beside their left leaning anti- US or perhaps anti- Bush bias) is that they don't have persons on their staff that can write informative articles on a subject which presents both sides and the facts of the situation. Once one reads what is written (if you have not upchucked) you don't know anymore than when you began. I lay it to present day state of the educational system.
There's some truth in that, but who edits the editor? The problem with most of the dailies I've worked on (aside from the fact I was pretty much the only conservative on staff) were that the editors were 10 times more biased than the reporters. The only one with more of an agenda than the editor was the publisher or owner. And of course, nothing appears if it offends his/her political sensibilities. The beauty of blogs is that pure BS will eventuall be revealed, usually sooner than later. You can fool some of the people all of the time (Californians mainly) but there are always a few expert readers who will know the facts. Granted, the writing can be horrendous, but if I want literature I'll read Shakespeare.