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.
