According to Zogby International's study of attitudes and perceptions of the Internet, 83 percent of the American adults surveyed believe a typical 12-year old knows more about the Internet than the average member of Congress. This survey finding is more embarrassing than surprising. While less amusing, the survey also shows that Americans overwhelming prefer a television newscast of an event over an amateur video of the same event.

The Zogby study was published in roughly the same news cycle as Time Magazine's selection of anyone participating in the web as its "person of the year." Time's editorial staff is acknowledging the power of everyone who wants a voice having one, at the same time its publishing team is coming to grips with the impact of this tsunami on its business model.

Time and Zogby are both right: there is value in every voice, and yet people look beyond the masses to trusted sources for information. The strong preference for news reports assembled by professional journalists -- even the sensationalism that often passes for television news -- over YouTube et al "news" adds more fuel to an already established point.

It's not new news that the lines between mainstream and social media are blurring. Or that journalists with credibility develop followings regardless of whether they are publishing on a blogging platform or being broadcast over a television signal. But the former have to earn their influence for at least a little while longer, the latter are presumed to have influence by virtue of their venue. Will the same assumptions ring true when another group does a study in 12 months or 18 months?