the american-statesman does publish blogs for sports and politics. essentially, it's a mid-day report that seems to try to capitalize more on the blog trend than anything. that said, some of the reporters have mentioned that responses generated by blog entries have changed stories. and i believe using blogs as a source of information can be extremely useful, if handled properly.
the problem with that and expecting blogs to become a broader news delivery device is the fact the lack of any disclosure requirements. most disturbing, as erin suggested in an earlier comment, no names. this might help explain why blogs have become especially widespread in op-ed. i'd guess that the most-often read op-ed blogs have names on them. but a structure that could establish some basic trust and credibility (of which names are the most basic example) would be absolutely necessary.
now there are some who'd argue the blogosphere would work this out. that a large number of people blogging, even if anonymous or only partially identified, would eventually ferret out the truth of a matter. first of all, i disagree that would happen. but even if it did on a regular basis, i would be even more disturbed by the lack of safeguards for the one time bloggers didn't lead to the right conclusion.
and that's why i think so many more people are comfortable with it for op-eds. here's a chance to get a broad range of opinions (and in virtually every medium), weigh them against one another and come up with you believe. and as adam s mentioned in one of his comments earlier, that all can be linked to the news/story/rumor/report on which the argument relies. i'd like to see this ratchet up all the more.
at what point do you think some of the laggards catch up? when do think we'll see Tom Friedman's blog (assuming he doesn't already have one i don't know about)?
also, would full disclosure (name, etc.) reduce blog activity, or at least drastically slow its growth?
