Well then, I should explain that I was going to go along to this panel in a personal-ish capacity (in general spirit of meeting complete strangers, swapping cards and then not phoning them), but Justine thought you lot might be interested and asked me to do it on here as well. I SAID that you are all utterly unimpressed by bloggers-talking-about-blogging - in fact someone on one of the G20 threads said it was the final stage of futility . But I am scared of Justine and tend to do what she says.
OBM, it would be impressive if I were on the panel, but I will be in the cheap seats. But I will definitely try to work in 'It's a false dichotomy wrapped inside a canard and served on a bed of hubris.' Actually you should be doing this, shouldn't you? It's more your area really.
I agree with Fenella's account of the distinction between bloggers and commentators - at least, I think that's the opposition that this discussion is based on.
I'm not going to be fighting any corner, I don't think. I'm not sure that blogging has many advantages over traditional media. It allows micro-specialisation, played out at great length - which can be a good thing, depending on how interested you are. And of course, in terms of news-gathering it's more immediate than traditional media - but that's partly because traditional journos have to do boring stuff like fact-checking and getting pieces past editors.
So if anything I prefer the MSM - I certainly spend more time reading it (well, the Guardian) than I do blogs. (I think the MN talkboard, and other talkboards, are something else altogether, and I find it a lot more satisfying than the average blog.) In fact that could be the MN 'angle' I guess, if we have to have one - why talkboards are better than blogs.