The New York Times has been giving a lot of column inches to bloggers and advertising lately. First, there was this story on how blogs are taking more and more dollars from other, more passive media outlets (cough, television, cough). It's all about how spending dollars smarter, not just spending more, is the way to reach an audience. Then there was this one, that asks whether blogs can truly remain uncorrupted and maintain the level of trust they now enjoy when they rely on ad dollars. The first story is pretty good, the second one stinks. Here's why.

There is a quote from the writer of the second story that says, "No one tracks how much advertising money is flowing to web logs." Really? Because I think I remember reading study after study lately about how blog advertising is growing and giving numbers to back that up. It also ignores the fact that while, yes, blog writers are getting some advertising dollars, most of them (at least the non-A-list ones) are doing so through third party outlets like AdSense. That means they have no idea who at any given moment, will be advertising on their site. And if something they say offends the advertser that's alright because another will be waiting in the wings. So the reliance on advertising as a large source of income is not there for most micro-publishers. That's what differentiates them from newspapers and such. If a blogger honks off GM, GM doesn't have the economic leverage with a blogger that it does with The Los Angeles Times and therefore the blogger remains unfettered by GM's displeasure. That model is what gives bloggers their freedom.

[PaidContent, while not the source of this story for me, has a great round-up of a series of recent blog/advertising stories.]