There. Up on your screen. It's a story. No, it's an editorial. No, wait, it's . . . superblog! Not really. But Dan Mitchell makes some interesting points in the New York Times about the urge to diverge on matters whatever that leads both professional journalists (who traditionally hide, or are supposed to hide, their opinions behind facts, figures, and quotes from industry experts) and just ordinary folk to spew their every thought online.

Why not? It's cheap. It's easy. And somebody, somewhere is apt to read it (thank you out there).

But is there really all that much to say? How many blogs are worth the time it takes to get them up? And are they really just rumor mills? I sat on a media panel last year for a teen group and found that whereas the adults on the panel got their news from the Times, WSJ, National Review, etc., etc., the teens nearly all got theirs from Entertainment Tonight and their friends' blogs. Kinda tilts your world view, yes? Do blogs, far from spreading the word, only encourage state-of-the-art naval gazing? - zander