You mean the same professional news orgs that publish 14 stories on Pussy Riot's plight but only a brief bit of wire copy from AP concerning Bradley Manning's first week of testimony? http://t.co/dCsfOEsf

The conceit here is the idea that the traditional news organizations are reliable, honest, expert, and doggedly pursue the truth. This just isn't true. Some of them do, certainly, but in the average case they're just another bunch of lazy, self-interested folks who are looking for the easiest ways to get attention and generate ad revenue.

There's nothing special about blogging, it's just a medium. Organizations build up trust through their track record, the same as in any medium. There exists tabloids and authoritative news outlets in the print world too.

How much faith do people put in blogs? I'd hope it wasn't as much as mainstream sources, who can rely on their brand. Bloggers (usually) need to produce primary documents to justify their claims.

A few year ago on April 1st, a bunch of bloggers got together and did this entire chain of a fake news story, each linking to the next one in the ring as "proof" of their story, no one actually ever leaving the ring. I thought it was amazingly self-insightful of them.