Part 1.
Out of the two articles, I chose to read “Which Media Do You Trust?”. This article seemed to me to be very poorly written. I felt as if the author kept almost repeating himself in different ways all about the same topic. He focused heavily on the fact that the trust in blogs was small, which after the first paragraph I clearly understood, yet he felt the need to continue further into a second paragraph. The article seemed to me to be a bunch numbers followed by a poorly thought out argument. Printed out, the article was only two short pages long, yet when I was finished I felt as if I had been reading for days. I’m not sure if that’s the author’s fault or if the topic he talked about bored me. Personally, I believe it to have been both. The author seems dumbfounded by the fact that people tended to choose TV as their most trustworthy source of information. In my opinion, I don’t see where else anyone would choose to get their information. After hearing over and over again from high school teachers that you have to be careful about finding credible information on the internet, I can understand why that option is out. As for the newspaper, they report the same thing that the TV news broadcasts report anyways!

Part 2.
Mark Glaser, the author of “Which Media Do You Trust?”, chose to claim that the trust of “the masses” of certain media sources was based already on media. Mr. Glaser stated that only twenty-five percent of “the masses” believed that blogs were credible. He then went on to state how he felt that the trust in blogs is based upon the preexisting media stereotype that “blogs have none of the great fact-checking of mainstream media, so they have no credibility”. Angered as Mr. Glaser was, he stated that this general statement should not stand true for every blog. He explained that the trustworthiness of a blog depends on who’s writing and his/her credibility with the audience. For this argument, I have a counterargument in the form of a situation. If a person is looking for something that contains the news, why would he or she search the internet and run the risk of running into a phony site? Many people have never encountered a legitimate blog once in their time of surfing the internet, so why in the world would they decide to look for a blog with the news? Taking a step back from these arguments, I pose a simple question to the author: if you believe that blogs deserve more credibility, how do you plan on proving the credibility to “the masses”. Simply enough, this argument/claim does not have enough of a realistic view or solution, to make it credible.