Originally Posted by Brian26
Watch where you're going with this, because that's misleading. They pay a small group of the close to 400 bloggers based on their traffic, which is a huge conflict of interest with most of these hacks when you consider they are not held to the journalistic standards TDog pointed out. Not every Chicago Now blogger gets paid. Not even close. Not even remotely close.... Even if they have "sources" and "scout friends" who teach them about arm slot and inside administrative moves at Clark and Addison.
I was unaware that some were unpaid. But that "conflict of interest" is exactly what the problem with print media is. This notion that it's not all for sales simply because there's an imagined line journalists of print won't cross is completely without merit. Sure, some might operate that way, or at least intend to, but the editorial process completely removes that. There's very few publications, maybe the guardian (and that's a big maybe), where other interests haven't completely removed any semblance of legitimacy. There's zero reason to not trust a "blogger" any more than any print journalist.
Originally Posted by TDog
If it's the truth, give me the source.
There is a lot of bad journalism, and I have called journalists on it and have been criticized for calling journ. Some of it's sloppy. Some of it's irresponsible. And the reputations of the journalistic institutions suffer for it, so much so that the institutions have an obligation to hire the best people that they can.
Your overall point, though, is wildly ridiculous. If you self-publish a book on economics theory, it isn't going to have the same credibility as a book published by a university press that passes peer review, no matter how much you complain about the evils of the institutions keeping your theories down.
This is about standards and credibility. Your sources don't approach the professional standards that the media your are attacking, and they do not have anything approaching the credibility.
The university press peer review process won't stifle a study simply because it causes a conflict of interest with it's ownership group, so that example is wildly off base.