Re-hashing/analyzing the information others have already put out makes up about 95% of blog posts, including my own. I know the drill. There’s no need to re-invent the proverbial wheel, but if EdWeek was doing what you said – and doing it effectively – we would have read, for example, a bit more copy’n'paste material explaining what the Super Bowl ed event entailed.

They aren’t doing it effectively, so we didn’t read that. We had to go find it if we wanted to, were able, had the time, etc.

Budget cuts don’t necessitate bad reporting. Your suggestion doesn’t apply. Unless you can make a compelling case for how budget cuts and strained resources make an organization unable to synthesize information properly – culling it from other sources who have already put in the effort, then assembling it in a complete, sensible way, which primarily involves cutting and pasting others’ text – then I’ve got to pass on your argument.

You’re right about assuming I’m not lazy and did necessary background work before posting. And that’s why privately I’ve written about how EdWeek will be under in ~3 years, especially because of their inability to adapt to changes in media both unique to their sector and more generally.

Man, talk about a budget cut.

Given your IP/whois information, you’ve got a handle on why I’d read it all.

I said they were lazy; I didn’t say they were idiots.