In the old days, we could do the classic Nick Hornby and create a compilation tape, or record an album and pass it to our circle friends. We had no notion (or interest) of mass distribution. Therefore our illegal flagrant copyright infringements never bubbled up to the music industry. Infact it was that very act that helped catapult relatively unknown artists into the limelight.

The same is to be said of blogs. At the end of the day blogs are merely peoples own views on a given subject. The story told by them. Warts and all. In the old days, this was limited to those around that could listen to the ramblings, usually in a pub or a work atmosphere.

But now, take that basic human want/need to share, and scale it up to the vast numbers of the Internet and now the whole game changes. Not only do they have a huge megaphone, but the tools exist to ensure that anyone that wants to listen, can, without any effort. Before the journalist could easily forget the ramblings of a view critics, but now, those critics have a voice that can be heard from all corners. Now they have a duty of care to get their facts in order, otherwise they will find themselves busted very quickly. So in my view, blogging has upped the anti on the quality of real journalism.

Blogs finally deliver on the promise of the Internet; the ability for the common-man to participate. The revolution has just begun, but finally the people have a voice, and they have thus proved, they are not scared to be heard.

Contending that blogs are in some way a tipping-point in the empowerment of the common man is all well and good...but is it not perhaps a tad naive to say this without simultaneously noting that half the world has yet to make its first telephone call, let alone exercise its critical judgement by writing and publishing a Web blog entry?!

Journalists have ALWAYS had a duty of care to get their facts in order. What you're saying is that a greater number of people now have the communications wherewithal to rebut and confute inaccurate reporting -- yet there has not been any discernible shortage of pencils in modern times, nor of disposable biros and paper. So what has changed? The medium. Not much else. Just as "Letters to the Editor" long ago became e-mails to the editor, so blogs spawn counter-blogs. But what's really changed? The same people that wrote the Letters-to-the-Ed now write blogs. Nothing's changed except that they don't have to buy stamps any longer to "post" their viewpoint.

What *is* really new on the other hand is that network TV news shows (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Blogs/) and mainstream business publications (http://www.busin essweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/) have begun to muscle in on the blog act, rather giving the lie imho to any notion of the blog as "a huge megaphone" for "the people" as you put it. That's one type of blog - but only one among many.

As you know as well as anyone on earth, there are now marketing blogs (http://rodrigo.typepad.com/nokia7710/), corporate blogs (http://blogs.sun.com/roller/), litigation blogs (http://groklaw.com), linkblogs (http://www.thauvin.net/linkblog/), MP3 blogs (http://www.fluxblog.org/), moblogs (http://tom.paamand.dk/moblog.htm), and photo blogs (http://weblogs.about.com/od/photoblogs/). The sub-genres go on being expanded and created on a daily basis.

Talking of scale, how about addressing my overall point, which is nothing more really more than a roundabout re-hash of Nobel prizewinning economist Herbert Simon’s one-sentence summary of the situation: "a wealth of information leads to a poverty of attention." In other words, the effectiveness of blogalism is arguably *diluted* by the sheer quantity of blogs, not enhanced by it.

Jeremy

"Naive to say"

This is how the western world has always worked, the few that can, do. So I really don't accept that as an argument. The world isn't waiting for everyone to come up to speed before advancing.

"Always have a duty of care"

Yes of course, but seldom do. Look at the inaccuracies even within the Forbes piece. With respect to them taking up their pencils, now who is being naive? The fact that I could write a letter means nothing. Who will read it? Who do I send it to? Letters-to-Editor pages are tightly controlled and edited and they will print what they want. For example, the publishing company I use to write for, treated customer emails with complete irrelevance. The only organization that is the exception to this rule is the BBC, where by a small number of complaints can really make a difference, but this is a unique tax-payer funded organization. When I write a letter I have a single chance of it getting read, and only if i am really careful in who i send it to. Where as a blog, I have an opportunity to reach a far greater audience.

"Muscle in on the blog act"

No they aren't. They are contributing. Thats the nature of the game. They too are allowed to use their "pencil/biro". Blogs are merely the expression of the human spirit, therefore the number of genres to support this will never but grow. Look around at society. How many clubs do you see? How many courses can you take at school? We like to segregate things. The blog world is merely a reflection, not the cause.

"Overall Point"

Dilution is a by product of scale. It's the same with anything. Why do some websites fail where others succeed?