You mention bloggers like it is a bad thing. Well, it is not, and here is why: Bloggers can't stand on their name, so their content (and their sources) has to speak for itself.
Before the internet people had to blindly trust their news sources. Journalists had their "laws" regarding sources and biases (e.g. require two independent sources, etc), and a good journalist could produce good content. Unfortunately the reader had no way of knowing if a particular journalist followed the "laws", we had to thrust the "name" of the newspaper or of the journalist, that is, thrust that the newspaper wouldn't risk muddling its name by not fact-checking everything.
Now, with the internet, most of the sources are as available to the readers as they are to the journalists. So the new journalists (bloggers) can cite their sources in their articles, and we the readers can check those sources and compare them to the journalist's conclusions. Suddenly a journalist's bias and incompetence is not hidden any more, any reader can "see how the sausage is made" and point out when it is wrong.
Unfortunately the internet is still riddled with journalists who "graduated" in the old world and refuse to cite sources, those grew up on a world where their sources where their business secret, something they had to protect from other journalists who might steal their story. Those don't realize that all the sources are just a google search away, and that the real differential they bring is the analysis of the sources. Personally, I assume that any article not citing its sources is either lying or has errors, and just dismiss it.