The reaction to that Fund thing sounds ridiculous (though I only know of it what I’ve read on that link Jonah provided).

But call me a knee-jerk NYTimes hater: I just can’t get beyond laughing at Bill Keller–the very description of blogs as “online writing that blurs news and commentary.” I’m sure he didn’t mean to simply distinguish blogs from NYTimes front-page dead-tree “writing that blurs news and commentary.”

That said, looking at the Fund nonsense, I see and am reminded of the Sean Hannity “Freeper” episode. And here I am again warm to Jonah’s rant. Folks are upset that Hannity evidently called his website a “blog” (how dare he!) and critcized Free Republic (how dare he criticize a conservative website!). Just because a dude is “MSM” and makes a criticism here and there of a “blog”/website (is Free Republic a “blog” either?) doesn’t thereby make him the enemy of the blogosphere. It’s certainly debatable whether or not you think the Hannity website offers anything for you, but it does have some personality–beyond selling Hannity t-shirts. Does that make it a blog? I dunno. Seems to me like blog is still a developing word. (A little like his site, I might add.) You may not find it worth your time, but he doesn’t have to have an official membership card, either (as Hugh Hewitt points out in his book on the topic, Blog, there are over four million blogs out there of all shapes and sizes–they obviously don’t all look like InstaPundit). And describe Hannity as “clueless” re: new media, especially on the Internet, is ridiculous (just listen to his show most days and see who he is directing people too–not every A1 NYTimes piece).

So, yes, blogs are a great and useful thing. But–I think this sums up what Jonah was saying, too–chill a little.