Ow. My cheek is hurting. Lemann really lays into bloggers this week in a grossly unfair article in the New Yorker.

Lemann attacks the claims by bloggers, such as Glenn Reynolds, that blogs will replace mainstream media.

Internet journalism, according to those who produce manifestos on its behalf, represents world-historical development—not so much because of the expressive power of the ne medium as because of its accessibility to producers and consumers. That permits it to break the long-standing choke hold on public information and discussion that the traditiona media—usually known, when this argument is made, as “gatekeepers” or “the priesthood”—have supposedly been able to maintain up to now.

It’s completely unfair to generalize the views of Glenn Reynolds to all bloggers. Most of us are pretty smart people who know the limits of the medium. See for example these very sane posts by Jane Galt and Ezra Klein on this topic.

This major error by Lemann shows either ill will or bad research.

Lemann also snuffs off the tone of hyperlocal blogs. He compares them to the writing of church bulletins. Despite their flowery rhetoric or hysteric tones, these local blogs are the only place for real news, as local papers have replaced content with advertisements and birth announcements. My brother is a journalist for a regional paper in New York and he finds the local blogs extremely useful sources of information.

And then, there’s the Reuters scandal. I know it’s Little Green Footballs, but guys, they deserve some props for this. This was a major scoop and an example of what the blogosphere does best. It’s a good fact checker.

Both Dad and Allison sent me links to Jeff Jarvis’s reply to Lemann in the Guardian. More from Jarvis here and here.