Responding to CNET's question, "Are blogs worth the hype?," former New York Times editor Howard Raines says, "While their overall journalistic contribution can be debated endlessly, some of the medium's drawbacks cannot be ignored. Studies show that their voluntary nature is a huge detriment, with 25 percent of blogs being abandoned within a year of their inception. And Fark.com's recent declaration that its contributors don't hold themselves 'to the same standards as (The New York Times)' probably didn't do the genre any favors."

I'm not going to critic the very specifics of his comments, mainly because he doesn't really say anything.

Whenever a new medium, technology, product, industry, etc. enters the markets, the same always happens: many players, much hype, many failures, many comparisons, many criticisms, a few survivors, fewer successes.

With blogs, however, the criticism is extra heavy from some because they're seen as competitors to the ones who do the criticizing.

Therefore, I find it ironic (and expected) that many of the more popular bloggers have turned to criticizing the media.

Only time will tell, but I wonder if the independent spirit of bloggers will be able to resist possible acquisition attempts by large media companies and withstand potential lawsuits from the same monolithic entities?