La, la, la I can't hear you...

Every once in a while I read this type of predictable journalistic knee-jerk reaction against blogging - self defense I call it.
It's fine - whatever people think, whoever people are...because I write this for myself, mostly - and with the notion that it lasts longer than the paper pieces I always end up tossing because I move around so much. Sometimes there is a little bit of drama - 'the agony and the ecstasy' of life - in my writing, and I most definitely misuse and abuse semicolons on a regular basis - but that's just because I write the way I would talk and there are all kinds of pauses in there that are better noted with a semicolon than a comma or a dash even if the rules of language say otherwise.
Either way, I just can't get to the viable 'why' behind this article - published by an assumed professional journalist - it's ironic that the author wants to call railing on about how annoying bloggers and their opinions are news:
"They are interesting people. They think that they have something to say. They want to be read and heard and seen. But their aspiration is blocked by the obnoxious monster called the Editor and their high-voltage facts mixed with slam-dunk fiction, with a lot of typos and commas and semi-colons in wrong places, go down a drain called the Editorial Process. So they turn to blogging and take refuge under a series of posts on a web page in the form of a diary, with hypertext links to other such diaries. The bloggers love to attack those they hate: from McDonald's to Starbucks to Karl Marx to Mandal to Germaine Greer to the colleague at the next work station. Blogs are an online stream of consciousness written by people who believe that they are under orders from someone to change the world. "

I find these pieces and their real-journalist authors a bit sad - as any dying breed will tend to be, particularly for those of us who sympathize with the underdog.
This backlash against the impromptu Op-Ed that is any blog on any given day is a symptom of the cancer that creeps up on those who do (or did?) get paid to write what they think.

I'm curious as to the why or how a blog could be threatening to someone who's made a living out of finding out what's going on in the world and making headlines out of whoever's trying to change it (for better or worse).
And no, there is no editor - and that's the point. No one to define what is marketable.

This journalist harps on about bloggers who have been invited (or want) to be paid for their writing and is equally annoyed with the media outlets willing to pay. But if you look at the extraordinary number of people who author blogs just for the sake of writing, doesn't that tell you that people will opine and create and complain and work through it all regardless of and oblivious to monetary compensation?
And how can a journalist, someone who does find profit in writing about the agony and ecstasy of it all as long as it sells advertising, fault a single soul for partaking of that? Because it's threatening to realize that huge numbers of consumers are turning to voices that sound like their own as an accesory source of media.

The thing is, like most who keep blogs, the only person I write for is myself and the only world I'm trying to change is my own. As to the semicolons - no apologies there either.