It sort of feels like WSJ is somebody in a glass house throwing stones.

The firedoglake lady rocked back, so much the Journal has nothing left standing. Tom Wolfe grows, each time, more adolescent, juvenile, infantile ... his mother's womb should watch out.

One part shows me a psychological element in WSJ that came out in a recent 'framing' discussion happening at The Rockridge Institute, (with link to 'list of biases'). That psych of behavior is: A bias in human nature has a double standard for 'knowing thyself,' as it thinks others behave because of the what they are and were born as -- the condition of them, whereas we behave because we are engaged with what's going on -- the situation of us. (The bias tilts more or less in different cultures; in the USA's it's quite steeped.) [ Reality is: we are all in the same situation, ecunemically equitable. Truth is: all our behavior is inborn, predestined. ]

See if 'between the lines' it sounds to you like the WSJ understates the quantity and quality of people writing and reading blogs, and overstates the measures of the people writing and reading the dinky inky Journal and its ilk of daily newspapers:

"The daily reading of virtually everyone under 40 -- and a fair few folk over that age -- now includes a blog or two, and this reflects as much the quality of today's bloggers as it does a techno-psychological revolution among readers of news and opinion."