Death of the Blogs
Everywhere I turn, people are talking about blogs. It's pretty retarded. Time has a blog of the year, whatever that means. CNN has a segment where they have two young women reporting on what the blogs are saying. If I wanted to know, I would read them. I could not possibly care less what LGF or Power Line or Wonkette or Daily Kos are saying today. (Sorry.)
That whole story about the CNN news executive ... I didn't find out about that until it was already a dead story. I didn't care. And I am glad I didn't care. I am glad I didn't find out about it until NewsHour reported it was all over and he had resigned, when I could actually get a complete picture from knowledgable people. Why should I care? Some silly person said something silly and other silly people took exception to it. So what?
The Gannon thing is even worse. It's not even a story. You see, a story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The Gannon story is all middle, and a little bit of end. The beginning and the bulk of the end are missing. We don't have any clue who did what or why, or what will become of any of it (except that Gannon himself resigned).
And that's what the blogs are good at: the middle. Getting into a story halfway over and giving us a rundown of part of what's happened. Even with some of the exceptional work some of them did on the Dan Rather/CBS/memo story, it was only part of the skeleton of the story that was offered. It was an important piece, but only a piece. It was not a story.
These blogs are like that guy at work who listened to Bill O'Reilly all day and says "hey, did you hear? Bill Clinton killed a baby seal with his bare hands!" If you care to look it up, you find out that a single seal died as the result of a bill he signed, which saved hundreds of other seals. It's only a small part of the story, and often slanted so that you can't even tell what the real story is.
This isn't about journalism vs. blogging. This is about blogging vs. itself. It sucks. It's boring and dull and doesn't lead us to truth. Oh sure, there's the occasional story where, *eventually*, we find out something resembling truth. But that's the exception, not the rule. Rather, we found something sorta resembling truth in the end. Gannon and Jordan? Not so much.
And don't even get me started on the overwhelming ignorance involved in the many blog analyses of different federal policies.
Gannon, Rather, Jordan, it all follows the same pattern. Latch on to some interesting bit of information that is only part of a much larger story, slant it to suit your political bent, and then make as much out of it as you can. Hey, look at me, look what story I can blow out of proportion! Link back to me KTHX! What is this, 1996?
Wake me when it's over.
(I don't normally use the term "blog" except in quotes; that I use it here without quotes means I am speaking about a specific subset of "blogs", and I am using the term derisively.)
That whole story about the CNN news executive ... I didn't find out about that until it was already a dead story. I didn't care. And I am glad I didn't care. I am glad I didn't find out about it until NewsHour reported it was all over and he had resigned, when I could actually get a complete picture from knowledgable people. Why should I care? Some silly person said something silly and other silly people took exception to it. So what?
The Gannon thing is even worse. It's not even a story. You see, a story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The Gannon story is all middle, and a little bit of end. The beginning and the bulk of the end are missing. We don't have any clue who did what or why, or what will become of any of it (except that Gannon himself resigned).
And that's what the blogs are good at: the middle. Getting into a story halfway over and giving us a rundown of part of what's happened. Even with some of the exceptional work some of them did on the Dan Rather/CBS/memo story, it was only part of the skeleton of the story that was offered. It was an important piece, but only a piece. It was not a story.
These blogs are like that guy at work who listened to Bill O'Reilly all day and says "hey, did you hear? Bill Clinton killed a baby seal with his bare hands!" If you care to look it up, you find out that a single seal died as the result of a bill he signed, which saved hundreds of other seals. It's only a small part of the story, and often slanted so that you can't even tell what the real story is.
This isn't about journalism vs. blogging. This is about blogging vs. itself. It sucks. It's boring and dull and doesn't lead us to truth. Oh sure, there's the occasional story where, *eventually*, we find out something resembling truth. But that's the exception, not the rule. Rather, we found something sorta resembling truth in the end. Gannon and Jordan? Not so much.
And don't even get me started on the overwhelming ignorance involved in the many blog analyses of different federal policies.
Gannon, Rather, Jordan, it all follows the same pattern. Latch on to some interesting bit of information that is only part of a much larger story, slant it to suit your political bent, and then make as much out of it as you can. Hey, look at me, look what story I can blow out of proportion! Link back to me KTHX! What is this, 1996?
Wake me when it's over.
(I don't normally use the term "blog" except in quotes; that I use it here without quotes means I am speaking about a specific subset of "blogs", and I am using the term derisively.)
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment