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.

Yeah, who wouldn't? But guess what: this isn't the case with the established media either. The idea that the New York Times is providing "uncolored" news is a laugh.

I'm sorry, but in almost every aspect of the news, of which the Kerry business is just a small fraction, I have seen more useful information coming out of the internet than the mainstream sources. Entire sectors of the news are ignored if they don't fit the agenda. Have you seen ANY of this kind of thing in the "mainstream media?" At all? Even the Wall Street Journal is copying that from a blog.

The internet doesn't need cash to send reporters to news sites. It already lives there. "Access" is useless if the media won't ask the questions people want answered. I can use my intellect to judge what's accurate and what isn't. Can't you?

The world is a library, and I get a lot more from browsing the shelves myself than I do waiting for some "official" source to hand me the books he thinks I need to read.