Gatekeepers

The concept of gatekeepers is often brought up during discussions about blogs and other communications outlets for we the masses. The argument being that at newspapers, magazines and their online equivalents there are those guardians of purity who insure that only triple checked truths get published. The fact that these "fact checkers" often get things wrong and that there is ample historical evidence of alleged legitimate journalists making things up, many continue to diminish the legitimacy of blogs. Even in the world of politics where they depend on them, they will not hesitate to attack bloggers when they offer criticism of those they have supported. At that point the accusations of being nothing more than pajama wearing basement dwellers starts flying.

Are there liars and those deliberately out to deceive on the internet? Yes, absolutely no argument here. They also exist in society as a whole including those called journalists.

It is ultimately up to the reader to do their homework and sift through the chaff. You cannot get your information from one source or at least you shouldn't. It's pretty clear from certain voting patterns that a lot of people do.

The internet gives anyone an opportunity to voice their opinion and address issues important to  them that may not be getting addressed in depth or at all in other venues. This ability must be preserved.

Traditional news venues need editors for a variety of reasons. I don't like the word gatekeeper as it relates to information dissemination or when used to minimize the contribution of bloggers. The reader is the only gatekeeper that matters.