This brings us to the question of whether this phenomenon is a good thing or a bad thing for the media and the public. I'd like to believe that we are seeing the beginning of an even bigger phenomenon, one in which both the MSM, the blogging world, and the public benefit. The MSM benefits because a stronger standard of truth and accuracy has inserted itself more strongly into the old media, which benefits both the public and the old media (it helps to reestablish their credibility).

By linking to the MSM article, bloggers are increasing the exposure to the original MSM article - which gives their online advertisers increased exposure - which increases revenues for the MSM that published the artice. Increased credibility and increased advertising revenues are worth the extra effort to get a story right, an present it with less or no bias. After all, that's what the public is demanding. and the better job that the MSM does at getting the story right, the more material bloggers have that they can count on to use in their posts for commentary and discussion - and the public wins all the way around. Just as the NYT article points out, "the power of blogs is exponential; blog posts can be linked and replicated instantly across the Web, creating a snowball effect that often breaks through to the mainstream media." Unquestionably, bloggers can get their message out - breaking through to the MSM, but they also have the power to let truth be known and provide a forum for open discussion. That, my friends, is what I believe bloggers can do best.

Is there a remedy for the MSM? As for a significant step toward "getting it right," the MSM should recognize what Jules Crittenden pointed out in his article; newspapers don't have an alternative, but readers do. It's called the Internet. That's why newspapers (and the rest of the MSM don't want to be dragged further into irrelevance and disrepute, they have to tell the source of their articles, most often The Associated Press, that they are dissatisfied with its product, and make damned sure that their own original material is accurate and unbiased.

Related reading:
Curt at Flopping Aces writes on the demise of the MSM:

At one time newsrooms across the country were filled with vets from WWII and Korea, filled with those who had lived through the depression, basically filled with level headed people who could understand a threat to this country when they see it.

Now what do we get? We get reporters coming from liberal colleges with preconceived biases against the right. They are NOT unbiased, they are not people with their feet firmly planted on the ground. Instead they are moonbats who have no problem doing shoddy work as long as it hurts those they hate.....conservatives.

Here's what an assistant professor of communications at Virginia Tech has to say about what he calls the systematic bias from America's mainstream media.