Last week I linked to Hugh Hewitt and Newsbusters' negative impressions of PBS's "News War" Frontline miniseries; as conservatives, it's not at all surprising that they'd have a beef with a PBS show. But while Jeff Jarvis is much closer to the demographic that PBS targets, he's also not very much impressed with their efforts:

I just watched the third part of Frontline’s News War and found it utterly unsurprising and profoundly disappointing. It delivered the obvious narratives it wanted to deliver: a war between mainstream media and the rabble of citizen bloggers, a cultural and quality line between old media and new, and a moral battle between the business and editorial sides of the news business, as illustrated by its lionizing of deposed LA Times editors John Carroll and Dean Baquet and its demonizing of Tribune executive and now LA Times publisher David Hiller. I was part of it, briefly, to fulfill their blogger-v-MSM storyline; here is more of what I said to them. I remain disappointed that they didn’t investigate the future of journalism, the opportunities and possibilities. Instead, they played the themes we have heard again and again, as if on a Top 40 radio station: tsk-tsking the tackiness, fretting about the news that the big guys are sure we need, evil Wall Street, looney citizens. I could sit down and fisk, as we say, all its cheap shots and lazy analysis and incomplete reporting but, frankly, I don’t find it worth the effort.

Meanwhile, Bill O'Reilly tells his viewers "journalism in this country is at a low point":

And it comes right before one of the most important presidential elections in history.

Much of the mainstream media now invested in promoting ideology at the expense of providing honest information.

* * *

We in the press have been granted special privileges by the Constitution. Those privileges are now being abused by corrupt editors and TV executives.

If "The New York Times" and NBC News can explain why they didn't cover the ACLU debacle, I'd like to hear it. If not, all Americans should turn away from them.

But they won't of course--at least not in numbers that generate any immediate attention from the legacy media, whose reaction to its slow erosion of viewers and readers ranges from surprising sanguinity to utter cluelessness. Which is why I've been wondering what--if anything--will happen as a result of what's been bubbling up for the last six months or so in the Blogosphere.