The value of content depends on the collective intelligence of the network around it.

Good networks concentrate intelligence by providing feedback and support that helps the network converge on useful, original insight.

Bad/malicious networks destroy it with noise and false information, creating a feedback network that suppresses reality-based original insight.

The process of blogging is irrelevant. So is the process of peer review.

It's the quality of the networks around each area of interest that defines the real value, not the process.

E.g. peer review works well when it's part of a high quality network. When it isn't, it's no better than random posting.