Regarding the quote you referenced, that's just a fact of business. What consumers pay for is the cost and profit margins of the company in question. What they

Regarding the quote you referenced, that's just a fact of business. What consumers pay for is the cost and profit margins of the company in question. What they receive in exchange is content. So you're saying that you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that the BBC, Times Online, Telegraph, and Guardian have the same quality of journalism as a bad blog? I find that hard to believe. I think if that's really your stance, you're more likely reciting the platitudes of the day. Now there are publications that focus on things like that, and that should die. For instance, the Sun, Daily Mail and so on. The sooner they die off the better. But that doesn't mean that there's not still good journalism out there. It's just a smaller ratio of the total content in the public domain, as the amount of really bad stuff has swelled. Think of the beer market if you'd like another example. There's a shitload of really crap "beer" out there. On the other hand, there's a smaller number of really good beers. However, you have to ignore the stuff that's appealing to the lowest common denominator (the Sun and Daily Mail and crappy blogs) to be able to find the real gems (the BBC etc...)