A blog can be a tabloid. The word tabloid might have its origins in the paper size used in the first ones, but the term doesn't have to stay there.

One's expectations of any particular blog should be no more than that of a tabloid (at best), without sufficient prior evidence to the contrary.

I can't tell whether this is a general philosophical statement or a response to my comment. I don't mind either, but I'd need more on the latter for it to make sense as a response.

I see describing something as a 'tabloid' to be setting it apart as sub-standard, below an acceptable level of quality, in the medium of print. As these standards are much lower (or non-existant) for blogs, it seems a harsh comparison.

I don't know why you'd preemptively lower your expectation of a blog. I start with a high standard and move on if the blog doesn't meet it. Why shouldn't this be the norm? There are more than enough good blogs on any subject to skip the bad ones.

I agree, life's too short for tabloids unless they're really useful, like the National Enquirer if you're a Man In Black, or Techcrunch if you're a startup entrepreneur.