Politicians comment that the blogsters have to be reckoned with. MSM set up their own blogs. As do candidates.
And some bloggers, like Kos, get to be known beyond their core membership.
It used to be I would see, on a yahoogroup, a reference to another yahoogroup, managed by the one posting the invitation to join. (It may have been the way I found your newsletter, mole, because I joined just one yahoogroup after the 04 election.)
One thing is for sure. Money is involved to publish blogs, just as it is for other media. It's not as hard to come by because the internet doesn't take as much. Still, them that pays, gets.
I notice how the blogs are interested in linking to other blogs. Just as print media have larger corporations they're associated with. Print was given an alert when McClatchey was sold. Even the NYTimes charges for some of their stories. Personally, I use salon.com so much that I fork over a subscription fee. I like places which have reporters. And I am also glad to read those sites which reference other published articles, on or off line.
I think what makes things clear for me is to know whether there is some investigative reporting behind what I read. And if not, then it should be evident that what is being said is analysis or opinion.
This gets back to high school journalism. There's news, feature stories and opinion. And the difference should be clear.
If a person owns a blog, that person has a view point, and if she/he takes in advertising--to me that's just advertising. And I'm a little cranky. I just don't pay much attention to ads. The pols would lose a ton of money if everyone thought like I did. I do, however, believe that it is going too far when TV plays the ads, for free, and consider it news. Analysis, possibly. Opinion, most likely. And demagogery, at times.