A few million people can't filter shit for me or anyone else with a desire to learn what occurs in the world, rather than someone's stilted take on it. Filtering by the masses just guarantees that whichever is the prominent political or social viewpoint of the people is the sort of article that is recommended. It basically becomes one colossal circle-jerk of individuals with identical ideals reinforcing their viewpoints.
At least professional media - and I'm talking network news rather than the sensationalist swill that's become of cable news - have a sense of duty, legacy, and [b]professionalism[/b]. Individuals who have devoted their entire lives and careers to uncovering news and attempt to repress their bias as much as they can (though it is impossible to be completely without some bias, conscious or otherwise).
Media by the masses is essentially the exact opposite, and often bold in their declaration of bias. Most 'reports' are indistinguishable from opinion pieces and rife with political commentary when none is necessary. What reporting is done uselessly superficial, as the individual neither has the learned capacity, experience, nor the connections to delve into a subject and uncover some semblance of the "real truth."
As it stands, blogging is comprised of two camps of individuals. The first is essentially a walking camera, and merely states what he witnessed, but has no capacity to elucidate the reasons it occurred. The blogger sees a plane crash, reports on it, but it is the network news organization that contacts the FTC, contacts the airport, talks to survivors, obtains black box transcripts etc. The camera-blogger is worse than useless as they serve only to muddle the truth by putting themselves as an emotionally charged intermediary between the actual event and you as the reader. These individuals have always been relegated - and rightfully so - by network and newspaper media to eye-witness accounts, to add a sense of humanity to the incident, but not to serve as the sole source for a story.
The second sort of blogger is the opinion-writer. With little and often no journalistic, professional, or even higher education, this blogger perceives his opinions to be worth more than the next person's. But they have no more credibility than your neighbor, your co-worker, or anyone else for that matter. If the individual does have some credentials, then they are already writing for, or at least submitting articles to legitimate news organizations rather than ranting online. The internet is a giant soapbox, allowing anyone to express whatever opinion they may have. However, having an internet soapbox gives an individual no more credibility than if they spouted their opinions off a real soapbox on the corner of the street.
If you cannot see the difference between what the reality of what blogging is, how the masses distort it, and which necessities of a free-society large media fulfills, then you're doomed to a future in which we can say good-bye to what transparency we have in our understanding of our world.