|12/31/2008 - 3:26pm||more output always lowers the average||
I think that statements of this type are misleading "if it's crap the reader will move on, never to return." This is the journalism equivalent of market-based economics (working very well right now). People read what they agree with, not what necessarily what is well researched or well written. What is more popular, the classics or Stephen King? Fox News or PBS? At least in the classic professional journalism world (periodicals, newspapers, TV, and radio) there is some level of internal quality filtering that blogs do not possess (credentials) although the content itself may or may not be well filtered.
"When there is a panoply of sources the average quality of items written goes down; the average quality of items read goes up." The analog here is the music industry. More uncontrolled content generation has done what to the music industry? What gets listened to more? I think you'll find that the statistical distribution gets narrower or even skewed on the lower side, bringing down the average.
Sorry Brian, but blogs only increase the entropy of the universe. I'm glad that you hold yourself to a higher measure but for every mgoblog there are 100 firelloydcarr.coms. Additionally, quoting source material only serves as corroboration if the sources are considered viable by the status quo. In the scope of sports journalism opinion reporting, sources are almost worthless.
It would be interesting to know whether this type of gag clause was present in termination agreements from the previous administration (Jim Herrmann, etc.)