Old media news groups that have put up news websites have had inconsistent success due to factors like the costs of moderation and the inconsistent quality of their user-generated content (UGC). As a result, readers are not all that excited about it.
You know what that means, right? Yes, we eat their lunch.
In a New Media & Society article(1), Neil Thurman of City University London states that despite a full-court press by old media to embrace Web 2.0 concepts, their own restrictions have caused readers to participate less than they would like. So some of them are considering it a failure.
Because we are basically clueless about what's happening in the blogosphere, I only learned about this flare up because a gentleman from PLoS who writes for scienceblogs mentioned us in his response. I had a small quibble with his statement
Scientificblogging.com is another blogging community. They have a different model. Almost all of it is commentary on the freshest papers. This is fine, but is unlikely to draw much of an audience. Popular magazines, like Wired, are trying to do the same.
but only because he used a prism that was not very accurate.
Paweł Szczęsny, one of those rare eastern European names that actually is more difficult to spell than to pronounce, at Freelancing Science (I do that too, but I call it "working for peanuts") made note of two articles on being a great scientist.
Morgan Giddings, Assistant Professor of Microbiology and Immunology and Biomedical Engineering st UNC Chapel Hill, wrote On the Process of Becoming a Great Scientist and Paul Graham wrote The Power of the Marginal. Both excellent pieces.