My clash with "Culture Clash"

It's very impressive that Dr. C was able to work the word
obfuscate into the article. Good word.
In his Culture Clash Dr. C brings up some interesting points. I disagree with many of them. While Dr. C seems to predict that the journalistic sky is falling, blogs will never replace traditional media outlets for several reasons. There. I said it.

For starters, bloggers can only respond to what is thrown to the public by traditional media. No blogger can have a sit down interview with Bush or Kerry or Nader. They can only respond to things that they pick-up in speeches and debates delivered to them by "Old Media."

In addition, bloggers have very little credibility and have no filter for thier own personal biases. Dr. C said it himself in his discussion about Trent Lott in class:
"He may be racist, he may not be. That's not the point."
Here in lies the problem with news blogging. In blogging, the truth doesn't matter. What Dr. C doesn't seem to understand is the fact that patterns of anything can be found anywhere. If you look hard enough, quotes out of context and hypothetical examples can be used to make anyone sound racist. It would be an interesting project to see how many other government officials sound racist, sexist, homophobic or even homicidal.

This should seriously quiestion blogging revered "democratic position." The blogosphere does not help democracy it polarizes it. Conservatives will only read the blogs of conservative bloggers. Liberals will only read liberal bloggers.
If the different sides of the aisle don't even read the same news, how can this possibley help democracy?

Additionally, Dr. C estimate of generation Y is a bit off. "Generation Y sees news coverage more as a discussion and less a lecture, an analogy for the tradition in print news." Nope. Honestly, generation Y doesn't give a flip. We would much rather talk and read about a game winning home run, Serena Williams' latest hoochee-mama boots, or who is shagging with Brad Pitt this week. We don't want to discuss the news. We want it to leave us alone.
If this Generation Y wants to discuss news so much, why don't students flock to the online message boards on Viking Web? Why don't students write about more than what shoes to wear tomorrow and how drunk they got last weekend? Dr. C's article may have a looser handle on this Generation Y than the author thinks.

I did like what the article had to say about the blending of journalism and blogs. Dr. C is ahead of the game by saying that the two can compliment each other. While it is tough to see what actually makes the difference between a online diary, a blog and a comment/message board, papers need to have plenty of ways to create a "discussion" with their readers. Should readers simply post thier reactions to the stories like at the Rome News-Tribune? Should they be able to write supplemental first hand accounts like on CNN? Should the entire site be built off of citizen journalism? I lean more towards the suplemental style, but an arguement can be made for all three types.

Newspapers walk a narrow line though, because comments on reporters blogs could still get the paper in libel trouble. To prevent that, editors would have to approve the blogs. If editors approve the blogs, they lose their authenticity. Where is the line?