Another Columnist Trashes Blogs
from the please-get-over-it dept
San Jose Mercury News columnist Mike Cassidy apparently had nothing better to do this week than write the same column just about every other random columnist has felt the need to write over the past year. It’s their column about blogs that does absolutely nothing to actually enlighten people about the blog concept, but does mildly trash it by picking out a random (bad) sample, and saying how silly the blog concept is. Yes, one example of a boring, poorly written blog shows what a waste of time the entire concept is. Of course, I imagine the blogkids around the world will now link, discuss, and link and discuss again until all the arguments we’ve heard before are repeated ad nauseum. Journalists and blogging: the great filler story of the year.
Comments on “Another Columnist Trashes Blogs”
No Subject Given
Y’know, I’ve been trying to behave myself lately, not writing anything inflammatory rebuttals to Mike’s rambling diatribes, but I have to take exception to the posting of this article. The only thing more dull and boring than journalists writing about blogs is listening to Mike TRASH journalists who write about blogs! I mean, this is probably the 10th time he’s posted a column about blogging on this site, and each time, he adds his own unfunny commentary about how journalists fail to grasp the concept fully.
I would imagine that many journalists actually DO understand the whole blogging raison d’etre, but in their columns they are limited to a certain number of words (unlike Mike in his rambling diatribes on this site!), which means they simply CANNOT waste space examining the minutiae of the blogging fad. They assume a level of understanding among their readership. To not be aware of that shows one to be a total right-brain, engineer-minded wingnut.
Re: No Subject Given
No offense, but the rambling diatribe seems to be coming from you. At least I understand what Mike is saying. Your post doesn’t actually make sense.
I would imagine that many journalists actually DO understand the whole blogging raison d’etre, but in their columns they are limited to a certain number of words (unlike Mike in his rambling diatribes on this site!),
Most columns are pretty long. I don’t think any of Mike’s posts have ever come anywhere near matching “column” length. I like Mike’s posts, because (unlike many columnists) he makes his point quickly and in an interesting way.
which means they simply CANNOT waste space examining the minutiae of the blogging fad.
I don’t think Mike was asking them to examine the minutiae. He’s just saying that he wants them to write more fairly about blogs. Trashing the entire blog concept because the guy found a single poorly written blog doesn’t seem very smart. It’s like me trashing everyone who reads this site because one idiot poster makes some stupid comments.
They assume a level of understanding among their readership. To not be aware of that shows one to be a total right-brain, engineer-minded wingnut.
Huh? What level of understanding of the readership was being shown to the readers? You’ve also contradicted yourself. If the original article was showing that readers already understood some stuff, then the columnist could have taken the time to look into the minutiae.
It’s not that Mike is complaining about journalists not giving a perfect account. He’s complaining that this particular account isn’t very good.
Re: Re: No Subject Given
Hey John, I’m amused and appreciative that you took the time to dissect my post. Also impressed by the lawyer tone you use in your rebuttal. “I OBJECT, your Honor!”
No Subject Given
What’s wrong with journalists trashing weblogs? 99.9% of them DO suck, and it annoys me when people claim weblogs are the “new journalism.”
I just don’t understand. Who reads these crappy weblogs? One look at most of them and you’re afraid to talk to another person ever again. You fear that they will tell you about how cute their cat is, how “kewl” so-and-so-my-blog-friend-with-the-high-contrast-website-that-thinks-she’s-an-artist is, or how unemployed they are.
Now, there is a difference in my mind between a weblog and a news site.
Weblogs are crappy diaries of twentysomethings that haven’t yet discovered the real world of employment, home ownership, or dating. These sites containuseless, overly opinionated crap.
News sites are Slashdot, Ars Technica, etc, etc. They provide pointers to and sometimes create interesting, relevant content.
If you run a news site with minimal crap about your boring personal life, don’t be annoyed with journalists trashing weblogs, and don’t call your site a weblog.
If you do run a weblog, be sure to stop running it. The proper way to stop weblogging involves a 5,000 word tirade about some other bloggers that have “ruined it for the rest of us” and how writing is “too much work.”
Remember the old saying: Content is king.
Re: No Subject Given
Hey, weblogs are just personal homepages made easy (well, assuming a CMS is used).
See it as a mode of expression, respect that some people want to put their lives out there, but you don’t have to read it.
Weblogs are crappy diaries of twentysomethings that haven’t yet discovered the real world of employment, home ownership, or dating.
And I sort of take exception to that, it’s a generalisation.
Don’t take us bloggers too seriously, I certainly don’t. Unless, of course, we come looking for you in a dark alley one night. Or something. Heh.
Re: Re: No Subject Given
It is a generalization, but I mean, have you seen these weblogs? It accurately describes about 90% of them. Oh no, I’m unemployed, but it’s not my fault. Oh no, I’m dateless. Oh no, my car broke down. Oh no, my coffee was crappy and overpriced. Oh no, someone is making fun of my lame weblog.
Re: No Subject Given
Actually, I don’t have a problem with journalists trashing weblogs. I do have a problem with them trashing the *concept* of weblogs by using a single example as proof that the entire idea of weblogs suck.
Certainly most weblogs are terrible. That doesn’t mean the concept is a bad idea.
Re: Re: No Subject Given
Hey Mike, ever heard of the phrase “Arguing for the sake of argument”?