It is a fascinating balance, and why reporting, esp. good reporting is soooo important. At its best, it illuminates an issue in ways that enlighten and entertain. When I was in in journalism school, one of the debates was always around balance and bias. Was it possible to truly produce a balanced story? Was it ever credbile to say a reporter was unbiased, or would it be more accurate to say the bias was understood and accounted for, or at least declared up front?

One of the reasons I think blogs have been successful as an information medium (with all their flaws) is that they, in general, have moved a bit away from the notion of balance. It's a fine line. But too often the MSM will explore a topic that truly does have a "winning" side from a data standpoint -- global warming, say, or tax policy, or evolution. Then, in the interest of remaining balanced, they will go out of their way to report on the both sides, essentially creating in the mind of the reader the idea that there are two equally valid points of view, instead of a fact based point of view and a limited dissent, often from the fringe. That may be balanced reporting, but it's not accurate reporting. The blogging universe, with its emphasis on opinion and (on good days) the ability of deeply knowlegeable people to weigh in, can provide a bracing antidote to the "on the one hand, on the other hand." The question, of course, is if the co-existence of journalism and blogs will provide a more truly nuanced and balanced view of issues.

I'm hopeful.