OLO and Crikey aren't blogs, as such (although they're analogous in lots of ways). I'm not sure what you'd call them, but to me they're in between the MSM and blogs in that they generate their own content, but the writers are upfront about their biases, too. At this stage bloggers are good at putting a 'flea in the ear' of the MSM, but only generate news content (at least in Australia) now and then.

This is changing, however, and will continue to change - various studies have shown that newspaper audiences are dribbling away and that their audience is slowly moving on-line. Certainly news media are in flux, although the lack of accountability is still troublesome. Bloggers are accountable to their readers, and that accountability is spreading to the MSM. Doctor a pic on your blog, and people will be onto you. Do it in the MSM, and bloggers will be on to you.

HD, Well for starters the thesis here is not new, see Chomsky,Hartley,Marshall Mcluhan, etceetera,

But if you're out to feed the great unwashed who congregate here in droves arguing about ideological impurities -something they havn't tasted before, fair enough.

Here is some morsels from me:

Following this link; http://www.safecom.org.au/do-not-disturb.htm
and read Mungo McCallum's excellent review of Robert Mann's book - Do Not Disturb: Is the media failing Australia?

• See also the ABC Radio National transcript of interview with RM.

An excerpt from this review reads:

"It is certainly true that the Howard years have produced a major shift in attitudes, and that even the broadsheets are now dominated by conservative columnists: there is no longer a shortage of right-wing Phillip Adamses. But the problem goes deeper: journalism itself has become more cautious, more ready to toe the line."

• and

"The situation appears hopeless, but not desperate, because the public seems not to care. David Marr cites the ongoing issue of asylum seekers as an instance where the clear dereliction of the media has been matched by the callous indifference of its audience. Guy Rundle suggests that this is part of a more general cultural change in which the neo-conservative right has become the paramount force in Australia." http://www.theage.com.au/news/reviews/do-not-disturb/2005/09/08/1125772645221.html

And this is what gnarly old Noam said;

" The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

• And this, my fellow cyber punters is exactly what the Murdoch press does here in "Straya". I eat it you eat we all eat and get constipated and then blame each other

“David Marr cites the ongoing issue of asylum seekers as an instance where the clear dereliction of the media has been matched by the callous indifference of its audience.”
That one line just speaks volumes for what the mindset of the leftist elite actually is.
Neither the press nor the general public are interested the way I am in the plight of illegal immigrants, sorry, asylum seekers, so therefore there is just something inherently wrong with society. It is totally beyond the comprehension of these people to consider that perhaps this great wrong, this humanitarian injustice, might be just something that exists in their head alone.
Why is it so hard for some to understand that while Australians might care about what happens within our borders it is just too much to ask a country of twenty million people to accept responsibility for the wrongs in a world of six billion.
Getting back to the issue, nothing more portends the road to totalitarianism than when, in one name or another, a Minister of Propaganda is appointed with powers to discipline the media so as to prevent the public being subjected to “untruths and biases” .
The best information system a country can have is that of a free media. No government owned so called independent media because it doesn’t solicit advertising revenue but just gives us “pravda”, but a truly independent free media where anyone and everyone, non-profit or for profit, broad based or esoteric, secular or religious, professional or amateur, local or foreign can have their say and where we eventually glean from numerous sources our best possibility of gaining the truth.

At a time when the Courier Mail should have been informing in the public interest, they buried a stem cell opinion piece in the back of the paper. Who made that decision? Why did they make that decision?

How can the public develop a perspective or voice an opinion on anything if they're not fully informed?