Blogging was a direct attack on MSM hegemony at both the micro (fisking) and macro levels (explanation space). I just don’t see Twitter as the same threat. It is a flood of unmermorable chatter that is easy to ignore. Blogging had the potential to break the power of the MSM guild. Bloggers, at their best, presented arguments. Arguments can both change minds on the immediate subject and undermine the credibilty of those establishment pundits who present weak cases on a regular basis.
Twitter is an example of a relatively new medium. When information was expensive to transmit, it tended to be sent in large batches. For examples, books, newspapers, magazines, letters, etc.. When transmission became cheap with the internet, at first we made cheaper versions of what we already had with handcrafted web pages and their blog successors. I think it took a while for the internet to sink in (I think this still hasn’t happened, BTW) and Twitter was a natural outgrowth of the trend of cheap communication. If you can transmit as often as you like, why not just send out messages arbitrarily often? As tweets are more of a creature of the internet, and not a cheaper and faster version of a pre-internet form, I assume that Twitter doesn’t feel like competition to journalists. A blog can do what traditional periodicals can and blogs also have several advantages that periodicals are just now starting to catch-up with (mostly by launching blogs). Twitter is just different and can feel like a compliment to the “Old Media”.
All that said, if you’re as skeptical of traditional media as I am, then you can read the message of the blog post I link to above and remember that blogs are still the medium that can offer what the “Old Media” either can’t or won’t provide. Help save the world, read and write blogs!