If the remedy for error is more speech, weblogs may actually be the superior medium, because of the greater speed and ease with which readers and other bloggers catch and announce the errors. I've seen this basic point made elsewhere in the past (Volokh?).

FYI, FNC transcripts are available on LEXIS, if you ever want to go back and look...

I wonder why FOX appears so insulted when people compare FOX to what amounts to a tin-hatted rant that adheres to no journalistic standards at all.

Whatever the case, I seriously wonder what “journalistic standards” are. Even since women have been allowed to become journalists, I have heard “journalists standards” mantra repeated again and again, but nobody will provide me with a set of definitions. As most law clerks know, because they are girls, journalists are incapable of reading a published decision from any court, but will still report on what the parties tell them it says. Is this “ethical”? My old firm was a master at doing this, and no journalist ever questioned a press release which called even a routine ruling by a judge “activism.” Anyway, the media buys this up hook line and sinker and because the lay people are too stupid to notice (or read the opinions, themselves), this is all they deserve, and Fox is just jealous that people are reading weblogs instead of getting their news exclusively from Fox.

Taint & Ron Burgundy: Intellectual twins separated at birth?