Destructoid writes: "This is an interesting issue that is going to see a lot of overreaction, but first of all, the major problem here is how one distinguishes bloggers and journalists. It's become a very gray area, especially since many bloggers have found themselves to be more trusted than more so-called "journalists." I'd personally take the words of any blogger over some hack writer for a dishrag tabloid like The Daily Mail or The Sun.
These days, it's both unfair and untrue to imply, as The NY Times has done, that bloggers are somehow less trustworthy than "real" journalists. After all, purveyors of aged news like the NY Times and sensationalist news stations like FOX News, often have to worry about corporate sponsorship and pleasing ad networks far more than bloggers, who are generally independent and free to express their own opinion. To say that it's bloggers who have tainted opinions, when it's "professional" news outlets that are very clearly ruled by marketing, is somewhat hypocritical.
That's not to say that bloggers are, themselves, angels. You get a lot of liars on sites like Tumblr, who will just spit up any old crap in the name of freebies and attention. The point is that you can't really separate bloggers and journalists, and then state that one group is more truthful than the other. Both sets of media have their angels and devils."