Jennifer Howard, whose site looks like a blog but isn't (she protests vigorously), writes an interesting critique about blogs, blogging, and bloggers. She acknowledges the social value, cautions us to take what we read with a dose of salt (and maybe check the sources?), and seems very subtly to protest too much in defense of the established press.
Jennifer hosted an online forum to discuss her article, and it worked a heck of a lot like a comment section of a blog.
I think that blogging and the established news forums interact well with one another, and compliment the good things that each have to offer.
But yes, blogging is not CNN. Thank goodness! Yes, there is a difference. And it is on purpose! Yes you can get bogged down reading lots of blogs, but how many newspapers can you read? How many hours of network news can you watch?
Blogging is useful in and of itself to combat just that problem which she highlights, and blogging offers tools to help us to sort through it all, and unclog our blog, such as XML feeds (a process that I am still learning).
Next, she flatly criticizes bloggers for too much back patting. What I have seen is not so much gratuitous petting, but instead, cordiality, ethics, and etiquette. Maybe the paper press could pick up on this?
Jennifer indicates that she has been highly criticized for her position on blogging. I wouldn't know. But I can see how it would be frustrating for a serious blogger to see such a well read and well written professional such as Jennifer Howard, only almost get it.
