Have just read a thought provoking piece in the Wall Street Journal about blogs. The argument put forward is that we bloggers tend to have large ego and feelings of self-importance. I can't deny that I myself have often thought that too. The article asserts that the blogs are not threatening the mainstream media, but are instead riding along with it, "like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps". He goes on to say "the blogs have enthusiastically endorsed Joseph Conrad's judgment of newspapering--"written by fools to be read by imbeciles"--they have also demonstrated a remarkable ecumenicalism in filling out that same role themselves."
Harsh, but probably fair for the vast majority of blogs. I do think though that if you remove the noise it may not be quite a starkly put. After all, and certainly in the case of the UK, I'd say the the core actors within this theatre are clearly people who, IRL, were already working in the media, think tanks, and/or political parties. They are not ranting and raving loonies that make up the bulk of what passes for comment. They often break stories, and they certainly influence the political agenda within their respective parties.
Having said all this though, clearly I'm a fool and you're an imbecile.