The bloggers may have discovered that the document was a fake,but it merely a smoke screen because Bush's service record is still in question...9 months unaccounted for and some records were either purged or lost..Funny thing all my service records are still in tact. So,Riverboat I would give the bloggers an 'A" discovery but an"F" for content.....President Bush could not explain where he spent his final months in the National Guard on "Meet the Press"..Only partial payroll records were ever found...I do believe there is a $10,000 reward for anyone coming forward to say they actually saw Bush on base during the 9 months in question.

Here is a story about three months that were in question.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage...

The question asked was "Do you think blogging has helped or hurt the news industry?"

If the question were directed to Dan Rather, I'm sure you'd get an unequivocal "YES!" The Dan, as most of you know (or should know) allowed a doctored piece of evidence purportedly made by Bush's commander which criticized Bush's service in the Guard during the 1970s. The episode was dubbed "Killiangate," after Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Killian, although I prefer the term "Killianquiddick," pace another Democratic scandal.

Blogs, like media outlets, depend on veracity and the public trust. Granted, we all make mistakes, but when CBS and the anchorman dig in with a story injurious to a Republican two months before an election, in spite of growing concerns over its veracity, one can't help but conclude that they can't be trusted.

How did this happen? A blogger, alert to something that media preener couldn't - or wouldn't - notice, alerted his reading public of something amiss. As a consequence, Dan is now wandering the halls of a museum talking to the portraits hanging on the walls and walking on beaches wearing a three-piece suit.

Funny how things come full circle.

First, I think some of you are confusing "opinion" with "reporting". I haven't seen any bias in a "reported" article in any of the many articles I read. I do, however, see bias in "opinions" and that is just the way I take it--it is an "opinion". I don't know that blogging is so much a benefit as it is an insight into anonymous people's bias. You sure can learn a lot about a person by reading his/her blog! Much like, I would guess, that you can learn a lot about me by reading mine. Thanks, April, for posing the question.

If you take the time to learn the subject, then a news organization with a bias will amuse you....For example... learn the ins and outs of a personal computer ,then go to Best Buy or Office Depot and match your wits against theirs.

Many will watch with a preconceived notion that a network is bias ,if they don't present the news with a left or right tilt. On the other hand,blogs are generally bias to the viewers liking.

Since the beginning of newspapers, reporters and writers have been biased and often thier stories were propaganda of some sort. This is not a new practice and it will certainly continue.

A blogger is like a commentator. They have a bias. So they will lean one way or the other.

A professional journalist should be unbias, many are not nowadays.

Todays news sources many times put a commentator in as a journalist. That is not a benefit to newsagencies.

The poll question of the day is not specific. Is the question, has blogging helped yes or no? Or is the question, has blogging hurt yes or no? The way it is written ensures that the question is not a scientific poll for sure.
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
Poll This
Do you think blogging has helped or hurt the news industry?
Yes
No

This is not a scientific poll.