I think Regan is confusing an effect with the cause. It's not blogging that caused this swing towards opinion instead of news (that change has been a long time coming). It's partly a product of relativism on the left of the political spectrum, and partly a product of monopolies. It is however blogging that is exploiting it. If I can't get news from newspapers, then I will in fact turn to blogs. I also don't like the filter that my traditional news is being put through. I want balance. So I choose other filters (other news services online) which is how I know that my news is filtered, because I can tell by the selection I get elsewhere that somebody is omitting news I would like to hear. It's competition. Capitalists should be happy about it, but I'm betting they aren't. By the way, his copy needs editing: should be than, instead of then. He's not blogging, so he should be subject to journalistic standards of spelling and grammar.

"...you're inclined to believe his opinion. Even if he's more mistaken **then** the folks who thought that cars would never replace horses, or that Jose Canseco's baseball talents were all based on his natural abilities."

Otherwise, it's a very similar spiel to the one I made the other day on this blog under "if blogs were so great."

I think I can milk this anti-blog conventions blogging thing I bit more, though. I was thinking of shifting to a knitting theme but then thought, no, go with this a little more.

I knew that. Please refer to post on Buckleys and head cold.

Christian SCIENCE Monitor. :-)

I bet the publisher's first name was Christian and his last name Science, no?

I thought it was founded in Crete and it is an anglification on Minotaur.

What? The minotaur was Anglican?

You know it. I went to a high Anglican undergrad school and it was all about the guy in the big ox headed costume.

Tom Regan's copy needs editing?

I'm shocked. Simply shocked.

Let it go. It was the 80s. We were all young.

You know, personally, I think a lot more money needs to be put into journalism especially newspapers and radio because they are news-friendly media (as opposed to TV which I think isn't). So it would be a mistake to think that firing people is the answer. These media need more writers not fewer. Both radio and newspapers are great for in depth and serious stuff. Also, they should hire people to do original pieces of research at each paper and rely less on recycled news service items. People sense the lack of freshness when they read the same stuff in every paper. I think that if they did that, they would be competitive. Who wants to read someone's personal journal when you can read some great in depth piece on Saudi Arabia or Pakistan written by somebody who's knowledgeable and worldly. I really enjoyed the Globe's stuff on China for instance. That was a worthwhile journalistic moment. But I also think that newspapers need to tone down their politicking, it makes them seem weak and bloglike. At the very least there should be an honest and fair debate on most controversial issues, not a single tune played over and over.

On the other hand, I really appreciate good writing that I get in papers like the Globe and Mail. Good writing isn't as easy to find among bloggers. So I don't think blogging can ever replace journalism or I don't think it should. It's actually very important to me that we move in the other direction. Journalism can compete by offering reliability, trust, competence and balance. If it tries to compete by becoming more shrill and hyperbolic it will lose. I think it got itself into this bind by lowering standards by relying on pseudo-celebrity and fluff and cutting back on meat and potatoes.

You might be able to sell my approach to journalism to a lot of people my age (I'm in my thirties) by calling it old fashioned journalism (balance, perspective, old fashioned objectivity). People like me want that kind of thing. On the other hand, if I am unique, you could lose a lot of money trying something that will never ever sell.