A. J. Rossmiller is underwhelmed by the argument that blogs are more meritocratic than the MSM. Matt offers a succinct rejoinder:
The only way for a blogger to succeed in having a lot of readers is for a lot of people (relative to the modest scale of blog enterprises) to genuinely find the blog worth reading. The MSM doesn’t really work that way. A newspaper is all bundled together. So as long as The New York Times is worth reading (which it is) and Bill Kristol has a New York Times column (which he does) lots of people are going to see Kristol’s columns. Him keeping his job just depends on him continuing to have the favor of the NYT high command. And then the mere fact of his presence on the op-ed page makes the columns "important" and worth reading for anyone who wants to participate in "the conversation."
Blogs are a little stickier than a pure meritocracy. But because they are not physically bundled and free, they are obviously more susceptible to market forces. Yes, getting into virgin territory first helps. Not many blogs have been update daily since Clinton was president, as this one has. But every day is new, and reinvention is key. If you read the Dish in 2000 and 2008, you’d read two very different products. There are no laurels here; and no resting.
The Dish 