I could just be taking the bait again, but Quinny's blogging about blogging (man, is there anything else bloggers love more?)
Got me thinking. Why would you conclude that having a blog gives you some kind of authority? Just becuase it's written down doesn't mean it's true! The fact that Michael is unimpressed by blogs is essentially the same as saying: "Conversations suck. I've spoken to all kinds of people, and none of them have anything interesting to say."
Which maybe true, but no amount of blogging will ever change that. Generally, people post what they care about. I post things that I think aren't particularly interesting to anyone but me. If somebody else find them interesting, well whatever. I think it goes to the question of why do people blog? I think you'll find the answer lies not in journalistic integrity, but in social psychology.
Having said all that, if anything, I think that the diversity of information leads to a more democratic kind of information. For one, I know that the blog I'm reading is an amatuer, unedited and unsubstantiated opinon. I'm under no illusion that it's some kind of gospel, or even likely to be correct. And two, If I don't agree with or like what I read, I'm free to counter-post with the exact same medium. I can't do that with my TV, or newspaper. Knowing who wrote something only makes no difference in Quinny's perfect content-centric meme powered universe. In real life social dictum's determine interactions.
It's like everyone is a pirate radio station. Your name is your call-sign.
"Roger-Dodger Milli Vanilli Chilli Willi"