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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Certainly most weblogs are terrible. That doesn't mean the concept is a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]