I've a couple of much bigger posts in draft, but lest you think I've completely given up on you, here's a quickie to keep things rolling:

Retired mainstream media journalist Eric Enberg channels Capote and is amusingly self-deprecating in this piece at CBS News online, wading into the "blogs are the new journalism" debate.

It's an interesting piece, but I'm afraid Eric makes the same fundamental mistake I've seen so many times in this seemingly endless "journalism vs. blogging" debate.

Eric ends his piece with a simile: "...the chances of the bloggers replacing mainstream journalism are about as good as the parasite replacing the dog it fastens on."

Blogs don't replace the mainstream media. The work product of a blogger and that of a journalist may be similar but they are absolutely not the same thing, for all sorts of reasons.

It's AND logic at work here, not OR.

Christopher Allbritton, of Back to Iraq fame (the only blog, AFAIK, to become a designated cultural artifact, according to The Library of Congress), puts it well:

"Blogs are the garnish to a well-balanced media diet."

And as every good chef knows, sometimes the garnish can be just as important as the main course.

[UPDATE] This bonus link just in: Erin Joyce asks "Are bloggers really journalists?" No, they're not (see above), unless of course they are. Erin has some interesting points. Worth a read.