Doc points to Nick Carr's piece on the Forbes article - the summation of Carr's piece:

Lyons's article isn't beyond criticism. His rhetoric does get overheated at times, and he can stretch too far in trying to make his points as pointed as possible. But those are hardly hanging offenses in magazine writing, and in the "citizen journalism" of the blogosphere they're as commonplace as typos. In rushing to dismiss the article, the blogosphere is simply exposing another of its shortcomings: It can dish it out, but it can't take it.

I think I could say the same thing about large segments of the print sphere - I haven't noticed a particular joy on the part of the print (or television, or radio) media when there are reports of errors on their part. It's common for corrections - even on large stories - to be buried deep in the paper, for instance, and to run long after the original story has done whatever damage it could do.

Then there's Doc's take on splogs:

That said, we also need to face the fact that some of the blogosphere (and it's more than a "sliver," I would submit - David Sifry of Technorati reportsthat close to 6% or more of new blogs are splogs) is a slum. That's the case with both splogs and attack bloggers, which are smaller in number than splogs but comprised of human beings (rather than robotic programs) practicing real offenses against other human beings.

Hmm - walked by a supermarket checkout recently? What do you think most of the rags there are, if not the "slums" of print media? The only real difference is that the barrier to entry for blogging is lower. The slums exist in both worlds, and they've existed in print for a long while. I don't notice the New York Times agonizing over its validity simply because the Enquirer exists. Splogs irritate me, but they have no more to do with me than the Enquirer has to do with the Times.