Thomas Crampton wrote an excellent piece about Blogging vs. Journalism. One point Thomas made was of great interest to me:
"Opinions: Blog postings work best with strong opinions in them. This is problematic for a journalist because we are supposed to avoid that. You can often get the same effect, however, by asking sharp questions."
With so many journalists turned bloggers, are we getting more objective reporting, or less? When I visit a blog, I look for analysis, commentary, and reflections; not pure facts. Does this inherently make it more subjective? I believe so - and that's why I visit blogs.
When I read the NYT's, I find it "objective"; but on reflection, that's probably because I align with them politically. There are millions of people who'd tell me NYT's is the most biased newspaper on the planet. Same with blogs - If you like what you read, you'd think of them as less-biased. Granted, of course, that the analysis is reasonable... There are, after all, many ways to skin a cat (where does this gross idiom come from?!). or... many roads to Rome.
Food for thought: Will the fragmentation of media lead to individuals that are more close-minded? Now that we can pick and choose what suits us best...