A. Uses "blogs" as their primary news source
B. Uses the term "blogosphere" in a non-ironic manner
deserves to have their eyes removed with a pneumatic drill.
Thinking that blogs are going to wrest power from the entrenched media elites due to the half assed fact checking of a bunch of freepers who live with their parents is the equivalent of thinking that rave culture is going to produce peace, love, and understanding, that Jet will revive rock and roll as an art form, or that your cousin's stupid zine about the intersections of Thatcherite neoliberalism and seventeenth century trends in interior design is the hottest shit since Proust wrote Remembrance of Things Past.
Posting on "teh intarnet" is just another medium, one that's just as prone to sheer brilliance as it is to sensationalist trash. For every www.kraftwerk.com, you have a Powerline. When radio was in its infancy, people made the same hyperbolic claims about how it would empower every individual, creating a decentralized check on the power of big media. It went through a period of chaos in which it was difficult to find worthwhile pieces of wisdom in a sea of shit before collapsing into the same old trends of centralization and mindlessness. Someone may say that the decentralized nature of the internet makes that impossible, but I think that decentralization becomes irrelevant when almost every site contains the same rehashed talking points that were drafted behind closed doors by party leaders. Not very liberatory. Not much different than the problems with the much villainized "old media."
Don't get me wrong. The internet is a really useful way to find a lot of information, but to assume that it'll overcome problems endemic to western news distribution because it has a flashier marketing campaign and can be used by every AOL subscriber with frontpage (or blogger... heh) software is a joke. The substance is what matters, not its vapid pretentions of futurism.