Blogging to join the conversation

Conservative pundit Arnaud de Borchgrave offers the usual about blogs and bloggers in a UPI commentary in The Washington times. One statement caught my attention, because it’s a generally accepted truth about the blogosphere in some circles:

The bloggers are frustrated would-be editors, journalists, private detectives and a multitude of others craving recognition for their special knowledge in a wide variety of subjects and specialties. A blog and an attitude are the only requirements to become an instant pundit with a worldwide audience.
The problem with this logic is that it presents a Modernist view of a Postmodern phenomenon. In the Modernist mind, the means (blogging) has to produce the logical end (recognition, audience). This is sloppy thinking, in my view, because it blocks a deeper, more profound truth. It’s an old wine skin looking at new wine.

The reality is that (some) people may indeed blog for recognition or to acquire an audience, but most just want to be part of the discussion or conversation, as we like to say here. There’s a big difference between the two, and it’s why I feel strongly that the mainstream media will never co-opt the blogosphere.

Comments

  1. Thank you for pointing that out. That attitude toward bloggers shows up often. They want to lump all in with conspiricy nuts and ham radio junkies (sorry I know they aint all bad either) Truth told the bloggers that would fit into that group of attention cravers dont get bookmarked by me or linked to by Instapundit. But what a wonderful way for them to do what they do and for us to read it. I love it.

Speak Your Mind

*