bakedjake - 1:59 pm on Oct 7, 2008 (gmt 0)

I think people have gravitated to the 'news' or the 'facts' they liked for a long time.

This is probably the most astute comment in the thread, IMHO.

Does everyone truly believe mainstream media has ceased to function as it should, and we're all doomed to be reading unedited blogs of pundits for the rest of our lives? Or is my problem that I'm asking webmasters for an opinion, which is natually a biased group. ;)

While everyone should realize that all media sources must be biased, does anyone truly think that the content of, say, The Economist, is not relatively intelligent and thoughtful?

Is it possible that mainstream media will evolve to become more objective because of the internet? It seems like the internet could help to hold the media to a higher standard.

No one seems surprised that this Wikipedia entry possibly set the tone for journalists for a couple of years on this particular issue. Why is that? As a society, have we accepted Wikipedia as the defacto resource on everything, even in the face of its flaws?

Is journalism dead?