Perhaps the scope of this discussion should be expanded. I don't find that “independent website” contributes much. I think it's far too vague to be useful. It doesn't distinguish between blogs and the thousands or millions of non-blog websites that are just as independent as blogs are. Further, a lot of blogs aren't independent.

If we're looking for a more formal designation than blog, how about Internet journal?

I admit that my aim here is purely selfish. I'm thinking about press passes. I think that Sports Information Directors (SID's) and PR folk at major college and pro programs would be impressed enough with the credentials of "one of the top 200 independent websites on the Internet" to actually give me passes to games and events.

Why should some podunk little paper get game credentials over a site with upwards of 2,000 page views per day?

I hope I at least get credit for my honesty.

I think the word 'news' has been denigrated to
the point that blog will soon be. How about ...
'infosite"

Hmmm. Sounds nice. But are you implying there are websites of the opposite character (NCB - not necessarily blogs): "Dependent Website". That does not necessarily have to mean "corporate". What about "Synophancy Websites" or "Party Line Websites"?

The word "Independent" is a word of much utility.

I'm not part of the MSM - I'm Independent.

I'm not part of legacy journalism - I'm part of an Independent website.

I'm not affiliated with any corporation or political party - I'm independent.

The word Independent can mean many things to many people but almost everyone interprets the word in a positive fashion.

Can you truly have "freedom" of the press if the press (or the Internet) is not Independent?

I am beginning to understand why Herbie the Dentist craved to be IN-DEE-PEN-DENT.

I sort of like 'Independent Internet Journal', but that could also be ""independent journals on the Internet". American Digest would certainly qualify (as would Mr. Sullivan's cut-and-paste), but W*nkette would not.