Blogging is funny.  Sometimes you feel passionately about something, write a blog, and nobody seems to notice.

Other times, what you write seems to hit a nerve.  Earlier this week, I blogged on the scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  My blog took mainstream media to task for not picking up on the ill treatment of wounded soldiers by the Army bureaucracy much sooner.  Smaller media outlets like the online magazine Salon, had started running stories in 2003.  And in 2005, there were congressional hearings that looked at some of these problems, problems also explored by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  My point was that investigative reporting that could have dug into this issue sooner was stymied by a powerful consolidated media that valued profits over good journalism, and that cut reporting jobs, and failed to give journalists the time and resources they need to do enterprise reporting that uncovers such abuses.

What I wrote got quite a bit of attention in journalism blogs, including www.poynter.org and www.grumpyeditor.com. And then the editor of www.TheNation.com asked me to write a column on the same issue.  That attracted three responses from readers so far!

Two of the respondents agreed with me about the impact of consolidated media, but felt that no one could do anything to change its impact, and that we should be grateful when good stories ever got reported.

One journalist sent me an e-mail that tore into my argument, contending that it is only when big media like The Washington Post report a story does the story gain any real attention.He also said that is was "easy to blame the media" but that Salon's readers were responsible for not reacting to Salon's report.

I'd love to hear from our Common Cause audience on this.  Are you concerned about the future of fact-based investigative journalism?  Should reporters have uncovered the problems at Walter Reed sooner?  Do you think we "blame the media" for our own failings as citizens?