However, what’s above isn’t a blog post, it’s an article. I don’t think I expressed any of my personal opinions, and any subjective statements were made in support of a quote I received from interviewees.

That said, you’re absolutely right that the article implicitly conflates newspapers’ online and offline newsrooms. This is an error on my part, as I’m well aware of the separation. I recently experienced a newsroom merge myself — it’s a painful process, but neccesary.

Personally, I don’t think bloggers appear more “intellectually advanced” than newspaper editors and reporters (online or offline). In fact, just the opposite. Yet bloggers receive the most attention because they yell, collectively, the loudest. And, as James Surowiecki noted in his book The Wisdom of Crowds, people tend to grant an undeserved amount of authority to those who talk the loudest, whether or not they have anything to say.

Or, as Fitzgerald wrote, “Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and don’t. The other half is composed of people who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.”

I understand that newspapers need a business plan for blogging. That’s one reason why I think BlogBurst is a good idea.

Also, Stephen says the blogosphere has thrived via reader interaction and community building, and therefore newspapers are crazy not to follow suit. While I agree in part with this, we have to keep in mind that the online industry blogosphere audience ain’t the online newspaper audience. Reader interaction on our sites is often more like a food fight (on the good days) and sometimes like a fight on the streets of Tombstone. The amount of time spent keeping the peace is significant. Worse, many people who would prefer a friendly discourse are put off and leave thanks to the word vandals.