George Lundberg on blogs: Is There a Place for Medical Blogs in a Medical Media Company?

… However, with that level of rapid market penetration, a media company ignores blogging at its peril. But since the blogger may be the author, editor, publisher, advertiser, critic, reviewer, and owner — all at the same time — and fake the whole thing, a trustworthy medical media company may embrace unfiltered blogging at its even greater peril.

My email response to Dr. Lundberg. Not surprising that I disagree. I probably will need to think through my response even more carefully. Thoughts from the loyal readers?

This long time medical blogger ( http://www.medrants.com ) believes that you have understood part of blogging, but missed some of the promise of the blogosphere.
As a blogger, I can write anything I desire. As a reader you have the opportunity to read that information, ignore it, believe it, or comment about it. Blogging allows me to express and opinion. It is no better (nor worse) than those who stand on soapboxes at Hyde Park.
Blogging gives me a chance to test ideas. The real test of my blogging is not an editor’s decision making process, but rather the marketplace of ideas. If I write nonsense, then readers will stop reading my site.
If I exaggerate, someone will comment. The democracy of the blogosphere makes any one blog a single input into our overall understanding of issues.
I believe blogging complements other publication methods. If I find problems with an issue, I can highlight those problems and suggest that we might view the problem differently.
I urge you to consider that blogging has pros and cons. I believe the pros can outweigh the cons. I would love to discuss this further at your convenience.

Bob