An interesting post on TV Squad drew my attention to this Jimmy Kimmel clip on YouTube in which he goes to town on a Gawker.com editor for the site’s supposed “slanderous” and “libelous” content (Gawker responds here):

As TV Squad described it:

Jimmy Kimmel was guest host on Larry King Live on Friday night, and the topic was gossip, celebrity stalking, and the various celeb mags and web sites. Though usually irreverent, Kimmel was dead serious about confronting Gould about the many false or mistaken sightings that readers (or as Gould calls them, “citizen journalists,” gag) sent into Gawker Stalker.

Kimmel’s concern with Gawker and, it would appear, blogs in general, really seems to stem from a common uneasiness with a lack of authority in these very public institutions. Blogs don’t operate under strict journalistic hierarchal standards—no fact checking, no corporate accountability, blah blah blah—and that’s upsetting to some because the result can often be chaotic and unpredictable.

It’s the same beef some folks have with Wikipedia; the site can’t possibly be more than a joke (as the writers of The Office apparently believe) cause regular people are simply incapable of developing and creating something worthwhile without a solid authoritative hierarchy put in place (no editorial board, no collection of “experts,” etc.).

But there’s a big difference between a blog and a newspaper, a Wikipedia entry and a peer-reviewed research paper, and it’s a difference people recognize.

People don’t need the authority. The lack of hierarchal structure behind blogs and Wikipedia is an entirely positive thing; it provides for a more fluid and open exchange of ideas and information, one in which the public becomes naturally more skeptical of the things they read. We no longer need to rely on a blind allegiance to “objective facts” gleaned from one information source. Now we’re all, “I saw it on Gawker” or “I read it on Wikipedia” rather than “It’s true! It’s true!”

The public is a lot more savvy with what they read than we’re often given credit for (as discussed recently) and our increasing skepticism amid a growing cacophony of voices only aids the savvy-ness, providing for a better informed, more dicerning populace.