I think David Weinberger begs the question here.

He’s basically saying that just because something deserves to be covered (in the media, including the blogosphere) doesn’t mean bloggers will blog it.

But he’s presuming that the criteria for “deserves to be covered” is something other than something that someone, somewhere cares to blog about.

What qualifies something as deserving of being covered? I take the apparently contrarian view that it’s something that someone, somewhere cares to blog about. How else are you going to define “deserving”?

Update: Ah, he’s saying it “doesn’t rise to the top of the blogosphere.” Well, shoot. In a long tail, miscellaneous environment, rising to the top is meaningless, isn’t it?