Speed is a core part of the blogosphere. Current event discussions happen fast, pretty much instantly. To be relevant in that dialog, one must write fast, post quickly. That's dangerous, I fear. It's how innuendo and rumor become accepted facts. We writers become so focused on relevance that we lose sight of accuracy.
Consider disaster coverage. Networks feel obligated to divert all coverage, even when there's nothing to say. So desperate for something, and wanting to get the "scoop", pure junk often gets dumped into the discussion. I've found that it often takes days to weed through the initial coverage to find accuracy.
Ironically, that said, I still feel a compulsion to watch that event unfold. I'll remain glued, catching every detail, all the while knowing that a high percentage is pure bunk. I drive me crazy, I guess.
Another example, methinks, of change begins with me. I understand at a deeper level, so why do I engage the same way. I need to let my knowledge guide me. And don't continue rewarding that media behavior. Ultimately, news is driven be views. Needing eyeballs upon itself, viewership (whether page hits or Neilson ratings) pays the bills.