Why the "Traditional Media" are better than Bloggers

We all know that bloggers are far less careful and credible than the traditional media. The key is to identify some key factors that differentiate bloggers from the more credible mainstream.

1) Resources to be sure they minimize mistakes.

Larger mainstream media outlets have the time and staff to be sure they get it right. They are not easily fooled and are diligent to make sure they get it right. The less mainstream like For Rant and the BBC are more likely to get it wrong. For example, the BBC interviewed a London cabbie they mistook for an on-line music expert to get his opinion of the recent Apple vs the Beatles court case that the Apple Computer Corp won. While the actual expert was sitting in a waiting room (surreally) watching himself give a whacky cabbie opinion on the court case the interviewer proceeded obliviously. The cabbie realized the mistake and after some initial consternation proceeded gamely.

2) Better access to facts.

While bloggers like the For Rant and CBC Newsworld must troll the internet and other sources for info - walking the tightrope of accuracy - large mainstream media outlets have access to a myriad of in depth sources. On the other hand, for example, CBC Newsworld has to quote things like Wikipedia frequently which occassionally includes inaccuracies. That's how they add real value to the Canadian viewing public. You wouldn't see someone more credible like Jon Stewart's Daily Show have to stoop as low as CBCNewsworld.