Its funny, the "new media" (bloggers, Facebook, You Tube) and the old media (MSM) have a weird and somewhat symbiotic relationship.
For example, most bloogers will start by talking old media stories and making commentary on them. And often, they will consider themselves very successful if they are mentioned or referenced in a MSM story.
On the other hand, the old media is fascinated by the new media and "what it all means." For example this article in the Globe
The premise is that the new media is taking a major role in the 2008 presidential campaign. Which is an interesting premise but I'm not sure the main example of the story (the Obama girl video) is a decent test case. (Yes, I include the video later)
people are calling this the YouTube Election — in which anyone with a minicam or even a mere cellphone can conceivably affect the outcome. "Some of the best, the most innovative stuff is gonna come from some voter out there, who changes the entire complexion of the race," says Joe Trippi, former campaign manager for Howard Dean in 2004, now adviser to the John Edwards campaign.
I mean, how many of the 2 million hits are from non-political types? How many of those hits are people looking for information and basing their ballot decision on the video?
Now mind you, the same problem faces bloggers. How many of the people who read blogs are actually influenced by the ideas and arguments put forward? Has my promotion of the NDP (for example) changed anyones' mind about anything, or does it merely reinforce the beliefs of the people who already have their minds made up?
I guess I will wait until the MSM writes a story about it :-)