The Republican-American ran an article today criticizing bloggers for spreading unreliable information. The author, Dan K. Thomasson, doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. He describes his target as bloggers, but then cites online magazines with political agendas as his target. Online magazines are not blogs. Blogs are like this, independent ramblings of individuals who don't claim to be any more authoritative than the next person (well, okay, some blogs are written by individuals who claim to be the only person who knows anything at all, but it's pretty clear that those bloggers are still just rambling with their opinions).
(One of the "bloggers" he refers to is Amanda Marcotte. A quick Google search led me to what Thomasson considers to be her blog. It's not a blog. It's an online magazine published in a format mimicking a blog.)
An article published by an online magazine is no different than an article published by a print magazine, except that the online magazine probably has a much, much smaller operating budget.
Thomasson preaches the merits of what he considers to be "legitimate" newspapers, implying that traditional news media publish only genuinely true facts. He should recheck his own article, since it inaccurately conflates bloggers and online magazines.
Even more, "legitimate" newspapers aren't as trustworthy as he claims. They print misinformation on a regular basis. Sometimes it's because they haven't had time to check the facts as thoroughly as they should. Sometimes it's because they've been fed deliberately false information. Sometimes it's because the editor has a political agenda. Thomasson's editorial is the cry of the traditionalist who can't adapt to the changing world.
It seems like the older you are, the more difficult change becomes. I wonder why. Is it exhaustion? Is there a limit to how many new things we can learn in a lifetime? Are some people just fuddy-duddies?