What relationship?

After all the readings with the New York Times and the blogs of chosen I’ve started to see a slight relationship between the two. Generally when I read articles in the New York Times I will read it and have nothing else to say about it. Usually the articles I read are simply informative and just go one way. But as I started reading blogs from scienceblogs, sometimes I would find a blog that would cover the exact same thing that I read in Times. Usually these blog would seem a lot less dry when reading compared to articles in Times but I would say that would be due to the fact that I am reading an article about something I already read about which sparked interest in me. I also noticed that sometimes the articles in the blogs seemed more personal than compared to those in Times. To me getting both styles of writing was perfect, I could simply get the facts and dry bones first then I could get more of an opinionative stance on the topic which would leave me to sometimes either question the article and do more research on the topic or further change my stand point on the issue. To me this is another step in how we as readers should be getting our news. Instead of simply reading everything from one source and souly believing in a company that could be spitting out lies, we should be reading from multiple areas in order to see both sides of the story. As we can see in Jarvis’s diagrams, the press sphere is changing into a sphere where news will soon be obtained from many sources, in turn opening our eyes to more than the highly propagated bias news.