On Blogging

A full-bodied discussion on blogging, below, courtesy of Howard Kurtz.

Some things I hadn't thought of:
1. The overabundance of media criticism in blogs rather than analysis of the issues at hand: "Show me a New York Times story on war in Sudan, and I'll show you 20 bloggers who think the real story is how the Times fails in its coverage of war in Sudan." says a Weekly Standard dude. I take your point, yo.
2. The ranty, pontificatory nature of many blogs (ooh, but I do it soo well)
3. The lack of truth squadding, the need to employ journalism basics. "Would blogs be more of a factor in public debate if more of their practitioners did a little research -- say, including the very old-fashioned notion of calling people up -- instead of merely pontificating?" Again, good point, Kurtzalicious.

Now the girl from Slate irritates me. She fancies herself a novelist, and she pulled the plug on her blog because she didn't become Wonkette or Opinionista with their neato book deals. Fine, but that's not what many of us are in it for. We don't, or I don't, give a crap about a book deal. This seems to me a backhanded way of saying that blogs aren't the high art she expected them to evolve into. Or maybe she's talking about her own persnickety artistic process stunted by the blog form. Well, DUH. Blogs are not novel run-ups, by and large. They are an alternative way of expressing life in the 21st century with a little indulgence mixed in. So put on your beret, write your goddam novel and leave blogs and journalism to us peasants, ok?

Ok, that was a little harsh, ranty and critical of the media without all the facts, a slap in the face of 1, 2, and 3 above. Bad porcupine.

Blogging: Good or Evil
Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html