This semester there's a visiting professor teaching at my school (University of Montana) who also happens to be an editor for the Washington Post. Tonight she gave a lecture and partially lambasted blogs, using Wonkette and web theories about "what hit the Pentagon on 9/11" to demonstrate how they can lower the bar for discussion.
As a devoted reader, I highly disagree and would like to establish a little local dialogue and maybe try to turn it into a guest editorial for the student paper or something.
In a recent media cycle where we see a comic tearing into the hosts of CNN's Crossfire for their theatrical treatment of the news, bloggers breaking major stories and print journalists criticized for their stenographic regurgitations of partisan rhetoric; just how much can bloggers be blamed? Or are they actually working to correct the process?
I'm basically hoping for some discussion here so that I can tie examples such as the Plame affair, Sproul & Associates voting fraud or New Hampshire phone-jamming together into a framework that demonstrates the value of blogs in the modern information market.
Oh, and while I know this probably isn't the appropriate time of year for these sorts of discussions -- I have spent the last three months and about 12-15 hours per day working field for our Dem candidates -- so I don't feel bad about using my little spare time to have a friendly debate with someone.
So my question to people is this: when or what made you realize the value of communities such as DailyKos -- both in this election cycle and as a function of media as a whole?