Well, are they?...

This, rather very serious question, was asked by FOAM - one of the most respected photographic institutions in the world - in its quest to foresse the future of phography, other questions had to do with truth in photography, analogy versus digital media, what is the ideal insitution for photgraphs will be, and other pertinent mindteasers about what photography will be like, and what its mission will be in the forseeable and not-so-forseeable future.
Well, the reason I decided to post about this, is that, as a blogger - I often wonder how important or meaningful my contributions are. Naturally, I am not a photographer (never mind me having published a whole series of photographic books and edited other such books!) and my technical info on photography is next to nil, but at some point I feel people take some of my opinions seriously.
Just yesterday, I was in a heated debate with a photographer, journalist and sociologist and at some point she told me that "I had no credentials to discuss any of this" (I am an agriculture engineer at base) so my reply was simply that if those "sociologists, psychologists, etc... were not capable of spreading the results of their researches then why shouldn't I step forward and fill that gap - credentials or not credentials.
But my retort essentially means, "just because I am able to spread my message, it makes my message legitimate" - which of course is not true (it is akin to saying, just because I should louder, my message is more worthy of attention).
So... Are we (as bloggers) the curators of the 21st century?

UPDATE: As if by sheer force of telepathy I found this in Guardian newspaper - including this passage about "From Here On" from Sean O'hagan: "I found myself longing for more curatorial selectivity, more quality control. I was reminded of some words of warning from the internet-historian, Andrew Keen, in an intriguing forthcoming film on digital culture called PressPausePlay. Keen speaks passionately about the downside of digital democratisation: "When you leave everything to the crowd, where everything is democratised, when everything is determined by the number of clicks, you are by definition undermining the seriousness of the artistic endeavour," he says. "There is no evidence that we are on the verge of a great new glittering cultural age, there is evidence that we may well be on the verge of a new dark age in cultural terms … where the creative world is destroyed and where all we have is cacophony and self opinion, where we have a crisis of democratised culture." There was a glimpse of that possible future in From Here On. It was not a pretty sight."