Blogs HAVE replaced newspapers

In the 1930s, New York had eight major daily newspapers, 35 daily foreign language newspapers, and dozens of smaller dailies, weeklies, etc.

Other cities could not support that level activity, but most cities had two or three dailies-even smaller places like Pittsburgh, Columbus, or Charlotte. Of course, most people read no paper or only one. But the info-junkie of 1910, 1940, or 1950 could read two or more. Most of the news was the same, but the marginal differences were important: a second editorial perspective, a wider mix of feature stories, contending reviews of books, movies, theater.

By 2000 very few people had that option. Most cities had only one broadsheet daily. You took what the Tribune or Dispatch or Times offered and you took it lock, stock, and barrel.

Blogs have replaced that second newspaper. Just as the engaged resident of New York could read the Times and Arthur Krock and then get the perspective of Walter Lippman in the Herald-Tribune, now anyone with an internet connection can match Mark Steyn against Nicholas Kristof against Charles Krauthammer.

The blogroll, Instapundit, and hyperlinks break the trend toward consolidation that has prevailed for the last 50 years (for the reader, not yet for the advertiser or publishing entrepreneur). Economics and the competition from television reduced the choices. Now, technology has restored some of them. How is that anything but a net good?