The great struggle of our time, between "major media journalism" and "blogging" involves who sets the agenda.

Exhibit A. I've been writing about the economic threat of India and China for years now. I've called the War on Terror a mere distraction from the real game. I know other bloggers have done the same.

But suddenly, wonder of wonders, Thomas Friedman of The New York Times goes to Bangalore, discovers we're right and now it's on everyone's radar.

I've written before here of the methods by which the major media is trying to co-opt the blogosphere and eliminate the threat. They're taking on some people, attacking others, and in this case, just taking others' ideas and claiming them for their own.

This is not plagiarism.

I need to emphasize that. Friedman's free to take my ideas, and I feel free to take his. But when I repeat what he says I'm called reactive, I'm called a blogging commentator who doesn't do the work. When he takes what I do (and adds the Times' travel budget) it's ground-breaking journalism.

Fortunately (and this is important) I am not the blogosphere. I'm one of literally hundreds of thousands of people who collectively make up the blogosphere. My value to that sphere depends on how many of you read me, how many comment on what I write, how many link to me (temporarily or permanently), how many repeat what I say.

Friedman just has other people carrying his megaphone. He has institutional heft I lack.

It's like working at Microsoft.

But just as open source trumps closed source because everyone's contribution together means more than any small team's, so over time the blogosphere will trump major media. On many stories this has already happened -- that's the lesson of the Rather and Jordan affairs.

For better or worse, agenda-setting is moving from the classes to the masses. Journalism, to survive, needs to change its focus. It needs to use its resources to dig up new facts, because anyone can do what it has been doing.

Will this happen?

Stay tuned.