The rant repeats many of the themes I've heard before, and has a certain amount of validity. I have a blog (law, not watches) that is fairly well known, and so I've been embroiled in this debate for a while. Not all blogs are credible or well done, but then, very few develop much readership.

Strandberg emphasizes the institutional virtues of journalism:

"The challenge with bloggers, in the watch industry and elsewhere, is that – unlike journalists, who have editors, publishers, proofreaders and fact checkers (the so-called “gatekeepers”) supporting them and overseeing what is published – bloggers are on their own, writing what they want about whatever they want."

Missing from his gatekeeper list is knowledge, experience or competence. They are journalists. They can write today about watches, tomorrow about wars, and possess no greater knowledge about either than anyone on the street.

Good blogs gain readers because people find the merit of their content sufficiently worthwhile to overcome their lack of institutional virtues. I think that this site, you Jeff, Mark and others, enjoy that same credibility that more than overcomes any gatekeeper involvement.

Scott