Read another article about the wonder of blogging

The article:The blogging revolution is written by a Andrew Sullivan. Andrew Sullivan is a well known journalist (The New Republic, and New York Times) who had an audience even before he started blogging. With that audience he allready had a network to operate within, an network that spread the word about his blogg from the time go. As he says in the article: "And I worked hard at the blog for months for free. But the upshot is that I'm now reaching almost a quarter of a million readers a month a making a profit".

Sullivan critises newspapers and magazines and suggests that with blogging there won't be any use of newspapers or magazines. Well known bloggers (because you have to have a decent amount of readers to make a profit) don't need the middle hand that they feel newspapers and such are.

Well I ask, what is the essence of newspapers? Why did newspapers evolve? Could it be perhaps to collect news? Collect thoughts and ideas and present them to the public? Blogs often just deals with one topic or more often only one authors view about one topic (or more). How are we as readers to be able to get a decent coverage of local, national and international events by searching the many blogs out there? There will always be a need for newspapers and such.

Perhaps I as a new blogger (yuk...perhaps it's just the word i despise) haven't yet understood the power of the medium or the technologies that make it powerfull. But I can't see how anyone should ever abandon the traditional media (with it's power to collect and present news) to instead search and read bloggers reports and views of events or topics.