Computer networks are not, by nature, "self correcting", unless they are specifically designed to be so.

Networks of people are not, by nature, "self-correcting", Unless they abide by a set of rules that require them to be so.

It is impossible to determine what the truth is from what the blogosphere prints on any subject. For example, there will never be enough hard evidence to "establish" whether Bush went AWOL, or if Kerry's wound was self-inflicted. There will always be screaming partisans on both sides of every issue, and people will always believe what they want to believe. I think I'll go commit suicide (JK).

Personally, I'd rather get my news from someone who has the cash to send correspondants to news sites and access to ask questions of the newsmakers. And someone who attempts to provide uncolored news.

You have hinted many times that you are coming around to the idea that blogs are just as good or better than the networks. That if you lay Drudge and Newsmax and Lileks end to end you will find the truth at the end of the line (throw in some Rush for color). Have fun with that.