Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:48:14 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Um. There are many fewer unreliable magazines, due to the non-zero bar to publication.
That's not entirely true, though. Magazines aren't considered "reliable" due to the said "non-zero bar" factor, but rather because of their history. People are afraid of blogs, even though there are many blogs that are just as reliable - even perhaps more reliable - than many otherwise "trusted" magazines. With very little exception, we'd accept a magazine source, with proper attribution, in a non-controverisial instance, and let the reader make the decision regardless of their knowledge of the source. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't do that with blogs, too.
There are two bars to magazine publication: cost (for the magazine itself) and editorial review (for the content).
*cough*
By definition, trash magazines do *not* have decent editorial review.