I found this Boston Globe editorial amusing:
Blogging: The lure of party money
A popular blogger has been pushing for another step toward mainstream legitimacy for the Netroots: a health insurance pool that would cover medical emergencies for some Web writers. According to the online journal Salon, Susie Madrak, author of the blog Suburban Guerrilla, envisions readers, grass-roots organizations, and even the Democratic Party contributing to the fund. She points to the blogosphere's role in the 2006 Democratic victories, and adds: "I think it would be nice if we got a little more than a pat on the head in return." With many looking to the blogosphere to provide a fresh new form of journalism, it is unsettling that some progressive bloggers see themselves not as commentators, but as fund-raisers for the Democrats. The Netroots can be advocates whose healthcare is partly subsidized by the party, or they can be opinion journalists, but they can't be both.
Oh really, Boston Globe? You mean the way establishment commentators are given well-paying speaking engagements in front of special interest groups they cover all the time -- but insist they're still "journalists"? I don't recall your fine publication writing about that, even once. (Or, come to think of it, neither does your parent company, The New York Times.)
It's a little disingenuous (either that, or downright stupid, and I'd prefer to think better) of you to ignore the very long list of establishment Republican organizations and think tanks whose well-paid members are often considered "opinion journalists" -- while getting the vapors at the thought of what would be relatively insignificant support for bloggers.
The Netroots can be advocates whose healthcare is partly subsidized by the party, or they can be opinion journalists, but they can't be both.
Oh yes, we can. And we will. And for you to hand down these pronouncements from on high shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what it is we do: We are advocates. We're also journalists. And it's all out in the open, critiqued on a regular basis by our own community.
We're activists, you see. And we're quite transparent about it.
Unlike the people who work for almost every major media organization who seem so inclined to, shall we say, shape the news they write. So since you don't seem to understand what we do, or how we do it, why don't you just worry about cleaning up your own profession, and we'll take care of ours?
Tim Russert
David Gregory
People are slowly waking up all around the country and realizing that if they want information about the world (formerly known as 'news'), they're going to have to dig for it on the internet.