An interesting article in The Guardian today outllines Why blogs need a health warning. The article focuses on the rise of blogs as alternative forms of criticism, i.e. alternative to those who get paid to do the job.
However, the article soon degenerates into making snide comments and gross general exaggerations about bloggers based on a case study of Chris Evans - a British radio presenter.
A less explicit part of the article suggests the only people who should be allowed to be critical are those who are employed to do so. Suggesting only fully paid up media critics can critique the media, only politicians can critique other politicians, only HR personnel can criticise a company that manages people very poorly, etc. Despite the fact that all of the above may have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo as it is.
I accept that there is unqualified and unsubstantiated criticism, but this isn't confined to the blogosphere. And even it was, I'm pretty sure someone people would stop reading your blog or leave messages to say you are bit off the mark, etc.
Most blogs are about being critical in some shape or form and I can't help feeling that if we lived in a society where we had the chance in every day life to express our opinions more freely then many would cease to exist. The workplace is a classic example of this denied freedom of expression.