MSM is in the game to make a buck. Bloggers, except for a scant few and the seriously delusional, will never see a dime from their efforts, yet they still do it.

What the devil could come from these two camps sitting at a table, especially when guys like Jarvis-as big an “inside the MSM biz” guy who, as long as he hosts “his” stuff on nj.com servers, is one biggie honking Conflict of Interest as there ever could be–who wants him even trying at acting as the bloggers’ banner carrier?

Unless he quits Advance/CondÈ Nast, he sits on the other side of the table.

You say the NYT is a great paper, maybe the greatest. What’s great about it? Please be specific. I asked the same question to Jeff Jarvis two weeks ago when he posted that the NYT was a paper he greatly respected. Mr. Jarvis ignored me, much like the NYT ignores readers who ask inconvenient questions. Since Mr. Jarvis, and, to a lesser extent, you, bash the NYT on an almost daily basis, I wonder what it is about the paper you find great, and what he finds to respect. If you would tell us what is great about the paper, and Mr. Jarvis would tell us what he respects, your readers, and his, could analyze what you, and he, say, and make comments accordingly. I believe any claim of greatness, or respectability relating to the NYT would be ripped to shreads by your readers. I read you because I DO NOT believe the NYT is great or respectable. I find it ironic that you do, and really would like to know why.

I’ve exchanged e-mails with the publisher and senior editor of my local newspaper, suggesting they inject some intellectual diversity into their staff to avoid bias. I pointed out that every single member of their editorial staff wrote nasty anti-Bush commentary during the last election cycle and that the news side of the paper reflects this bias through the articles it buys from NYT, AP, etc. The publisher ended our “conversation” by writing “bias, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder.” The senior editor slapped me down by saying they were doing what was in accordance with their values and notions of American democracy. (huh?)

Last weekend the senior editor wrote a column saying that the meaning of editorial cartoons was “in the eye of the beholder” (must be popular around there) and that he couldn’t wait to see the varying reactions to the cartoon they were going to run depicting George Bush as a snake handler.

Snaker handler. Yeah, we all disagree on what THAT means.

Screw ‘em.

Then whattaya waitin for?

In the old world of gatekeepers and editorial control, legitimacy was being published in the NYT, et al. These guys spent their LIVES acquiring that sort of legitimacy and blogosphere approval (to them) is just one more notch on the belt, one more kudos for the wall, one more indicia that allows these guys to look in the mirror, in their quiet desperation, and repeat to themselves, their mantra: “I am REAL!” [Think about it, what state of mind do you have to be in to characterize other writers as "drooling morons"? No wonder shrinks in Manhatten drive Benzes.]

These guys crave legitimacy and they think you and the Perfesser and the usual suspects can give it to them. So go ahead, indulge their collective fantasy! Be the tailors of the Emperor’s New Clothes, let em think they’re “edgy” and “in touch with the youth of today” or whatever…

We, your loyal readers, know that the only legitimacy is whatever it was you just finished writing… it can’t be given & it can’t be bought…

So, as I said, you guys go ahead, have a good ole time smilin in their faces and pickin their pockets and we’ll be right here waitin to hear what fun it all was…

The thing that gets me is that this is labeling it all again. We are we and you are you.

The MSM just needs to wake up and ‘read the blogs’ and most especially the comments on same.

Yeah maybe some good would come out of meetings, but I see mostly ego’s stroking themselves in an attempt to be inclusive and perhaps to dull the point of the sword.