This article paints traditional media with too broad a brush. There's plenty of junk on TV, but plenty in the blogosphere, too. And I really love my weekly copy

This article paints traditional media with too broad a brush. There's plenty of junk on TV, but plenty in the blogosphere, too. And I really love my weekly copy of the Economist, and doubt anything of its quality, depth, or rigor could be published by someone without their budget or credibility. So there's space for both larger "legacy" operations as well as smaller independent writers and thinkers, publishing their thoughts. The main thing is that access to distribution no longer guarantees credibility: just because you're on TV, doesn't mean you have something important/meaningful/honest/worthwhile to say. So it's up to each individual to assess the credibility of their sources; ironically, a major "critical thinking" skill taught in traditional university education, something distinctly out of favor here on HN.