Has anyone else noticed how often blogs are mentioned in traditional, or "old school" media outlets lately? How about these articles:
-NY Times cites bloggers as the skeptics to a multi-billion dollar company's meager donation of $5 million to Africa. While I applaud any efforts to support impoverishment in Africa, I think taht the bloggers make a great point in asking whether an organization, or a show like American Idol (and I am purposefully not linking that) should be applauded for doing so little when given their appeal, they could something truly impactful.
Or, how about the blogging gadfly (marvelous word, gadfly, isn't it?) at the UN? This piece is especially interesting because it questions the validity of bloggers as "journalists" and how institutions like the UN should handle the rapid influx of new media. But it also brings to light concerns about information sharing. Bloggers are not edited as newspapers are and they also aren't limited by space and time constraints. What does that mean for the likes of the UN? Or the World Bank? Or the White House? Doesn't it mean that blogs could supply in depth, contextualized news coverage? That blogs could be innovating not only how we read our news but how we understand it? Is this really the power of web 2.0? It makes David Silver's AEIOU (Already Existing Information Optimally Uploaded) come that much more into focus. The news is out there, it's the degree to which we find it, read it, understand it, and discuss it that might by revolutionary.