That's the benefit I keep hearing the newspaper industry and the NBCC keep harping on: newspaper reviews have editorial review, and blogs do not. I've yet to hear how that actually makes their book reviews better.

Rat's Reading - http://reading.kingrat.biz/

On the flip side, I have heard that readers "trust" bloggers more than traditional media. Bloggers are viewed as the average guy. Which leads me to believe, if bloggers are "average" and producing merely "average reviews" then perhaps those reviews will be more valuable to the "average reader" who maybe surfing the net.

Tricia Ares
Editor Modern Matriarch

I have read many reviews on the 'net, and I have yet to see even one that I would call "vulgar". People who do the amat reviewing typically do a very good job, and talk about not only the quality but the relevance of a book in plain English.

I think this is perceived as a threat. That's where that "Editorial Review" thang comes in, kingrat - what they are saying is, "We pull our punches and that makes us better. Our reviews are sanitized - for your protection". Great. It's just like the white middle class of the 1950s never really did die off. Don't people understand that there is at least one full generation out there that isn't interested in being spoonfed?