Do we need to give blogs a wider appeal?
We have talked much in our blogs about the ability of blogs to offer a wider opinion than the MSM, to give citizens a voice, to create a new breed of citizen journalists.
However, this weekend has made me wonder if the blogging community is making the classic mistake of many politicos - assuming everyone else is as interested in what we're doing as we are! I have met up with several different groups of people this weekend, all very smart people, and most of them people involved in politics and government here in DC. But few if any read blogs on a daily basis, and those that had were not impressed with what they saw.
Too often, they complained, blogs seem to have too much ranting and raving, and not enough thoughtful insight. They are not as easy or interesting to read as a printed or online newspaper , and people I spoke to complained that they had to search through too much 'noise' to read anything of value. We may complain about the 'filtering' that happens in the MSM, but at least most of the articles in the NY Times are well written and researched.
Many of the people I was with have important roles in DC, and could make a valuable contribution the public discourse. But they were put off from making any comment by the fact they would be told they were an 'idiot' or something equally insightful on a blog because the person disagreed with them, not because they could offer an counter argument.
I believe that the blogs who are really hoping to become an alternative to the MSM need to take some time and ask what they can learn from the MSM in terms of editorial policies, fact checking and general usability. Only then will blogs fulfil their considerable potential.
However, this weekend has made me wonder if the blogging community is making the classic mistake of many politicos - assuming everyone else is as interested in what we're doing as we are! I have met up with several different groups of people this weekend, all very smart people, and most of them people involved in politics and government here in DC. But few if any read blogs on a daily basis, and those that had were not impressed with what they saw.
Too often, they complained, blogs seem to have too much ranting and raving, and not enough thoughtful insight. They are not as easy or interesting to read as a printed or online newspaper , and people I spoke to complained that they had to search through too much 'noise' to read anything of value. We may complain about the 'filtering' that happens in the MSM, but at least most of the articles in the NY Times are well written and researched.
Many of the people I was with have important roles in DC, and could make a valuable contribution the public discourse. But they were put off from making any comment by the fact they would be told they were an 'idiot' or something equally insightful on a blog because the person disagreed with them, not because they could offer an counter argument.
I believe that the blogs who are really hoping to become an alternative to the MSM need to take some time and ask what they can learn from the MSM in terms of editorial policies, fact checking and general usability. Only then will blogs fulfil their considerable potential.
6 Comments:
I disagree. I don't think the point is to be the next New York Times, its different. Blogs are what Jack Trout and Al Ries would consider guerrillas in the media market place. They create a small niche in the marketplace small enough for them to defend. Its the same reason why Fox News is so successful, it is created to appeal to a specific audience that is being neglected otherwise.
I can see where many people don’t read blogs. I for one mainly read tech blogs where you don’t find so much ranting and raving, but instead discover information on new technologies on the horizon, facts, and cool new toys coming out. I usually find that political blogs tell me nothing I needed to hear. I appreciate people’s opinions, but am perfectly capable of deciphering how I feel about an issue, without the help of a patrician blogger.
I'll admit that the ranting and raving to good comment ratio in the blogosphere is astronomical, but that certainly doesn't mean there isn't anything worthwhile out there (not that you're suggesting that). I've been reading blogs pretty regularly since the Fall of 2002, and during that time period I've streamlined the handful of blogs that I read to ones that produce intelligent, insightful content on a regular basis.
But there are less than a dozen that fit this description, so I can see how someone who has just waded into the mess that is out there would be overwhelmed by crap. When it's good, there's nothing else that compares; when it's bad, it's nearly worthless. But finding the former makes it worth dodging the latter, for me at least.
Blogs now are what pamphlets where two hundred years ago. Pamphlets evolved into the newspapers of today. The process of earning credibility has begun for blogs. Reading public blogs I have seen how I could learn to trust some blogs to be accurate while some others are more places to post "Rants".
I do believe that there are some blogs that do not have thoughtful comments. But with these past two weeks i have discovered that with blogs you have freedom!!!!
It is true that some people do not want to post their thoughts because they are afraid. Afraid of what others will think. Other people believe it is a waste of time. In a way i used to think that. But now that i have my own blog and i am able to read all others comments, it is fun and interesting. It is great to interact with so many people that think different from you!
I agree with gwo dem, it is noy about being The New York Times it is about citizens wanting to have an space to discuss.
I think that Peter raises a great point...us politicos often forget that the majority of Americans have never viewed a blog, let alone posted on one. In fact, in my recent trip bach home to Utah, I had to explain to more than a few people what a blog is.
Post a Comment
<< Home