Are the parties trying to use the bloggers?

I just spent some time on PressThink where there is always a long-winded dialogue going on about something to do with the media, often just a name-calling process between those who cast aspersions on the "liberal" press and the others who beat their breasts about the liberal press. The current discussions have to do with whether the bloggers the Democrats invited to their convention are actually journalists or if they are different from the mainstream journalists. I suspect the difference is more that most mainstream journalists are backed up by fact checkers and editors who look at their work for coherence and, as may be, for the party line before it goes on air or sees print. Bloggers generally do not have that backup and a great number of their reports may spell names wrong, get facts wrong or have some of the other wet dreams seen on blogs. On the other hand they may be very well done. But it will be even more important to weed through what they write to determine the truth from the emotional content. The real importance, I think, may be that the party is attempting to use them to put out its presence, its image, on the Internet. Howard Dean showed Democrats, and Republicans if they were watching, that the internet may be the new television of politics. It may have a significant effect on who votes on what. And name recognition is still the name of the game. I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right. But manipulation is the name of the game in politics today—the TV sound bite which is avowedly sought by every candidate is a good example. So it may not be important what journalistic function the bloggers will fulfill, but what is their political function? I suggest that inviting bloggers to the convention is just a political recognition of the Internet's potential.