My Take Two

So! Apparently, I don't follow direction well. Here's the article we were SUPPOSED to blog about.

1. Alright, the article was decent. It was too long. Should have been about 4 paragraphs shorter. I know they could have cut it down, but they didn't. It held my attention up until the list. Then I stopped caring. The author has a nice voice. It sounds like he's actually talking to me. I like the accessibility. Lastly, I like that he even thought up this article. I've never been a blogger, but I like the idea behind them, and now that people are "trusting" them, I look forward to blogging in the future.
BLOGBLOGBLOGBLOGBLOGBLOG. That's a fun word to say.

2. This article itself is a fallacy. It's a bifurcation. News is either blogs or "else." This doesn't hold water! Blogs are not a source of news. That in and of itself renders the rest of the article useless, because blogs don't compete with news sources. They may discuss, criticize, praise or ignore them, but blogs have not, do not, and will not compete with sites like CNN.com, or the New York Times. It just won't happen.
However, if the underlying argument was valid, the article would have made good points. The idea of transparency, I think, is one of the most important areas for blogs to shine above "other" news sources. The blogs that are able to be trusted are the blogs that cite themselves, acknowledge mistakes, and state their own opinion, rather than spitting out half digested facts and generalizations. Blogs and bloggers are human in source, and more accessible than a front page newspaper article.

I like the idea, just not the way it's presented. Less emphasis on competition between blogs and other media, and more emphasis on the rise of reliable, informative blogs would have made this article better.