I think that Bowser is pointing out that blogs attract people who believe what the blog publishes.

You read something in the paper, or heard something from Dan Rather, and you figured it was probably true. Or if you were reasonably intelligent, you figured that the news staff made a good faith effort to find the truth within the limits of time and resources available. And that meant the product could be either true or false. And that the story would develop over time to become more and more true.

Here is an example of a story becoming more true over time. Note there is no momentous "retraction" required. It is just further coverage of a developing story. First coverage is worst coverage. Always will be.

Also, it sounds like Instapundit is advocating giving a "pass" to bloggers who get it wrong, yet holding media news accountable. Shouldn't people scream just as loud when bloggers retract? Or worse, when bloggers don't retract and the true believers quote them to support failed positions?

That's because, while arguments from authority are hard on the Internet, substantiating arguments is easy, thanks to the miracle of hyperlinks. That's the crux: bloggers supply arguments. This is going to be a difficult concept for some, but in debate, there can always be two (or more) positions. And one can supply endless lists of arguments to support one's view. There need never be a time when one side must admit defeat. How often do you see a "Yes on Prop nnn" committee make a public statement to the effect that: "The No on Prop nnn committee's brilliant advertising campaign has convinced us that they are right and we are wrong. We reverse our position and strongly oppose Prop nnn."?

(This is actually a lot like the world lawyers live in -- nobody trusts us enough to take our word for, well, much of anything, so we back things up with lots of footnotes, citations, and exhibits. Jeez, no kidding! Bloggers are indeed like lawyers. What is a trial lawyer's job? To persuade.

This also means admitting when you're wrong. No it does not. Admitting you are wrong is voluntary. Some do it. Others do not. Nobody does it all the time.

When you're a blogger, you present ideas and arguments, and see how they do. To the extent that "seeing how they do" means judging your email to see if you get more "Right on!"s or more "You are a lunatic!"s, then it does not correct for the truth at all. Quite the opposite.

When you're a news anchor, you're not just putting your arguments on the line -- you're putting yourself on the line. Dan Rather has a problem with that. For journalists of his generation, admitting an error means admitting that you've violated people's trust. For bloggers, admitting an error means you've missed something, and now you're going to set it right. He sets a pretty high bar for poor Dan! And pretty low for bloggers.

Bowser's homeopathy image was right on the mark: if you have faith in it then it works. If you believe what the blogger says (and it supports what you want to believe), then it does not matter if it is true or not. It works.