[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 14, 11:56*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 13, 9:05*pm, vinyl anachronist
wrote:

On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 13, 5:59 pm, vinyl anachronist
wrote:

On Aug 13, 5:33 pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 13, 5:26 pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,

Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.

1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
services?

I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
them.

Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.

So the answer is obvious. Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
on the blog.

Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?

You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
blogosphere is IMO, futile.

Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.

Public media like the NYTs?

It's a simple question.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast...investigation/

or Mary Mapes of CBS whose forged evidence was outed by blogs?

We're not talking about the Jayson Blairs or the Stephen Glasses of
the world. It's a simple question.

The blogs may be superior or perhaps not. That depends on the blog.
There is a wide variety.

In other words, they're inconsistent.

*So is the "public media" whatever that is.

BZZZZZZT.

Quite a few back up their material with numerous references and some
refuse to use "unnamed sources".

"Quite a few"? "Some"? *Like I said, it's a simple question.

*No, it's just you wanting to paint a rather diverse group with the
same brush.

*Who knew you were so prejudiced.

It *is* a simple question, 2pid. Why so much dancing?