Originally Posted by TDog
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 problem with your argument is that there is no standard for credentialing, it is simply a matter of belonging to an organization with the means to publish and distribute material.
The counter argument is the non-traditional journalism is more credible for the fact that it is not controlled by those who simply have the means to control it. The editorial control is instead exerted via crowd-sourcing which results in a more truthful content since it is uncontrolled, not directed from the top down, with all the interests that corporate leadership is interested in protecting. Instead, those who have the most convincing argument are the ones who direct the nature of the discourse of information.