I find it amusing that I am defending the journalistic honor of Matt Drudge, but ... putting Drudge in the same class as Wonkette is deeply insulting to Drudge. At least Drudge reports occasionally interesting rumors that are occasionally true (indeed, the people who hate him most hate him because of a rumor that was true); Wonkette only makes snarky comments, along with the occasional foray into rumors about legislative assistants picking up extra money through prosititution. She is like a giant emperor's new clothes act. This comment should not be construed as praise for Drudge so much as disparagement of Wonkette.

"The best bloggers link to opposing views, excel at Chait's "ass-welt reporting," and perform Google and Nexis searches ad nauseum."

Problem is, the bloggers who do these things are in a distinct minority. There are a lot of bloggers who fit Jones' description pretty well.

Blogging at its best is very good and provides a much needed alternative to mainstream media. But at its worst, well the supermarket tabloids start to look pretty good in comparison.

It's worth noting that Drudge is serious, but Wonkette is glorious self-parody.

More to the point of Dan's post, I think an analogy may be useful. Understanding current events requires both obtaining facts and interpreting them. I agree with Dan that blogs are most useful in the interpretation function, though they sometimes report new facts. Obtaining a good interpretation of the facts becomes easier, at least in my experience, when you have many different viewpoints available. The analogy is to solving a mathematics problem. Typically, two people can solve a mathematics problem more than twice as fast as one person, because the second person is likely to bring in different points of view and different techniques. Similarly, I find reading different points of view to be useful in interpreting current events.

When I say different points of view here I do not mean left-wing points of view and right-wing points of view, but rather economic points of view, philosophical points of view, political points of view, legal points of view, military points of view, psychological points of view, etc., as well as the points of view of non-expert, but well-informed, ordinary citizens. The blogosphere is an excellent tool for obtaining these many points of view and for synthesizing them.

95% of Drudge is just links to news stories, with some comment supplied in initial selection of the link, the placement of the link, the type size of the link, the color of the link, whether there's a flashing icon, etc.

Another 4% are "developing..." which are later replaced by links to news stories.

The remaining 1% is his own reporting, probably tipped off by other people. For instance, finding that MoveOn.org was still hosting one of the Bush-Hitler ads.

I find myself agreeing with Drudge much of the time, so I find his filtering helpful.

As for the bloggers, has any one of them asked a politician a tough question? Many of them seem to be fanboys and fangirls, which isn't what I'd like to see from supposedly non-mainstream sources.

Also, Drudge has a radio show where he amplifies on what he links to, takes calls, and plays show tunes. Despite the latter, it's worth a listen.

Agree with Sam's comments.

Bloggers are attending the convention for various reasons, I'm sure. But, I have yet to read a post from a person that has spent any time interviewing the delegates who aren't elected officials. You know, the little guys. The people from small towns in Kansas, Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma. It would be an interesting perspective to me. What is it about the Dem party that attracts these people when many of their brethren support Repubs? Not sure how the bloggers role is any different from other journalists at the convention. Meet and greet each other. Try to score a "big" interview. Get into the A list parties. I was hoping that the nature of blogs, that they are means in which anyone can put their two cents in at a minimum cost, would lead some of the bloggers to take a different, more grass roots, approach to covering the convention.

Bow to Giblets! Bow to Giblets NOOOOWWW!

Excellent distinction between what historians would describe as research and synthesis. More honor among historians for synthesis, but the appeal of discovery is shared.

Instead of "ass-welt" journalism, how about "sciatica journalism"?

Alas, I speak from painful experience . . .

I concur with Average Joe. Dudge is a quirky and somewhat unsavory individual, but he has given theunique gift of independent reporting while serving a sorely needed niche.

Wonkett and her ilk are self aggrandizing boobs who give the Internet a bad 'buffoon' image.

I confess to not having a good feel for how bloggers come across to non-blogging journalists.

I've taken blogging seriously for a while, and have learned a great deal from the reporting and commentary of the better bloggers, several of whom are also journalists. However my personal threshold of amusement, for better or worse, is rather high; I don't stay with bloggers like Wonkette (or, for that matter, with print columnists like Maureen Dowd) long enough for them to make much of an impression.

People new to blogging appear not to discriminate in this way. Perhaps because their introduction to blogging often comes through reading articles about it by unsympathetic journalists, they tend to think of the blogosphere as equally well represented by a site dominated by short comments with lots of links (Instapundit), longer essays with fewer links but large attached comment sections (Drezner), and electronic soapboxes run by kids, nerds, fanatics and otherwise eccentric people (a category that includes hundreds of blogs). I don't blame anyone for not taking the latter group that seriously, but confusing them with the (admitted minority of) good bloggers is a serious mistake. Just as politics needs the participation of people who have not made it their principal occupation, so do journalism and commentary require the participation of talented and often accomplished people from other fields. What blogging does is enable such people to bypass the barriers to entry into a world journalists are liable to view as their own. Perhaps it is natural for some journalists to resent this, but this may only be a first reaction, one that will dissipate as more people become used to separating wheat from chaff among bloggers.

Drudge is serious and Wonkette is not? Are you serious?

Drudge is the biggest fanboy of all minus the writing skills to actually enunciate his ongoing theme of Repubs Good, Dems Bad.

He's been on the web for how long and exactly how many stories has he broken that weren't leaked to him?

Please explain to me the difference between the drudgereport and a bathroom wall. A banner ad?

At least Wonkette is funny.

And this nonsense about his radio show... Sunday evening AM radio is the place where ads are given away because of lack of listeners. Isn't it telling that in this era of Right-dominated radio and tv that Drudge can't do any better than Sunday evening radio?

Poor guy is so desperate that just the other day he's stealing pictures, flipping them, and turning red lights green (http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2004_07_25.html#001662)

No wonder he doesn't write anything. It would be too easy to point at and laugh at.

If it turns out that M.M.Spcl. Drudge did indeed steal "Tom Tomorrow's" picture I will be the first to condemn him in front of the next VRWC council. However, there is the possibility that the photo was sent to him in that condition. Anyone can see that they're the same photo, and somehow I don't think Matt - who's 28th level f'r gosh sakes - would think he could get away with that.

Wonkette is funny in small doses, but she's not exactly moving stories, which is what M.M.Spcl. Drudge's role is.