Okay, I didn't read all of this article. I read most of it. It was easy to see where this guy was going with what he was saying. Let me say up front that everything he says negatively about blogging, political blogging, in particular, is absolutely true.

With that said, his conclusions are dead wrong, or they can turn out to be, the next few months/years will make that decision.

Let me tell you why I believe that. I was in Korea during their last Presidential election. Their voter turn out was about 10% higher than the American turnout just a few days ago. There was an incredible amount of political commentary and discussion in that country over their election. Most of it was not from conventional news sources. It was from the normal public over the internet. Yes, it was unprofessional, mostly biased, not well-crafted journalistic writing. What is was, however, was normal people getting involved in the electoral process. Taking an active part in discussing, persuading and being persuaded. Everything the election process is supposed to be about. Who cares if the professionals were cut out of most of it? Better yet, shouldn't the professionals who have a financial interest in the success of their message be cut out of the process as much as possible. How can they not help being biased?

Also, one of the reasons that voter turnouts for elections in the recent past have been so low is that people feel left out of the process. Blogging involves others. Look at some of the posts that I have cited on my blog from Daily Kos. What kos and his guest bloggers have to say is not the end of it. The readers of blogs are encouraged not only to read but to comment and take part in what is being said in the blogs they read.

So, no, Eric Engberg is absolutely right. Blogging is not journalism. It is real people, real voters talking about what is important to them, and what they understand. Funny, I thought that was what the Founding Fathers intended from Freedom of the Press in the first place.