A very intriguing comment from Dan Bricklin on the Blogs at Harvard Law home page, noting that not a) not all bloggers are created equally and b) that bloggers may have some key natural advantages in covering a primary than ordinary reporters would:
“Politicians will be more open to real voters debating them than a reporter who must be ‘neutral’ but is viewed as ‘potentially hostile — don’t mess up’. Other interesting bloggers are those that go to the trouble of reading the others and making sense out of them, perhaps in ways others may not have noticed, and pointing out gems or filter for particular readers (e.g., the technical audience, or the AARP or labor union crowds, etc.) I agree that this in an addition. But that’s like saying the farmers and business people who wrote around the time of 1776 were just an addition to the reporters of the day.
I think the fact that bloggers can intermix opinion with observation will get real discussions going. I think candidates that read the blogs (and they’d better to watch out for misunderstandings getting out of control) will help with feedback that could bring real issues to the fore, if only to be read by those that really care about those issues.”
Just the kind of thoughtful response we were hoping to provoke.