Decision ‘08

This Is The Anti-Blogging Case?

Bruce Kluger, occasional blogger at Huff’n'Puff, opines in USA Today on the state of the blogosphere, and uses the tired analogy of a child spouting off without the embrace of the editor parent. His take on the month of August is that it was a bad one for bloggers because (a) Joe Lieberman didn’t drop out entirely, and (b) Snakes On A Plane wasn’t a big hit.

I’m not joking.

Says Kluger:

As an occasional blogger myself, I’m still wary of the phenomenon. On one hand, it can be liberating to log on and spout off, unencumbered by editorial oversight.

On the other hand, as August 2006 clearly demonstrates, bloggers can just as easily get it wrong. That’s worth remembering.

The whole thing reminds me of child-rearing. As the parent of any toddler can tell you, the younger the child, the louder the screams for attention — and quite often, the degree of the crisis is in reverse proportion to the decibels of the bellows.

To that end, it’s important to remember that the blogosphere is still in its infancy, and like any kid, it needs to be watched very carefully.

Ummm…no. No one rides the progressive bloggers more than me (well, okay, I’m sure someone does), but the fact remains that without Hamsher, Kos, et al, Lamont would have never been a player. And Snakes On A Plane? Jeez, who cares? Personally, I don’t like snakes, like most people, and I certainly don’t care to watch a movie about them, on a plane, in the toilet, or in a garden.

Or, as our friend The Real Ugly American puts it:

The “blogosphere” is not a gigantic megaphone for the ”blogger” collective all speaking unanimously with one voice. It is exactly the opposite. It is a collection of small and large voices each advocating their own ideas and opinions. I had no idea any blogger said Snakes on a Plane was going to be a blockbuster and I read blogs night and day.

If Hollywood executives actually believed that something some blogger or group of bloggers says, can make a stupid movie appealing to the mass market, then that speaks to the idiocy of those particular executives not the effectiveness of the blogosphere.

That’s exactly right; bloggers are smart, stupid, paranoid, cheerful, annoying, and delightful in the same proportion as any other communication outlet. The REAL tendency that needs watching is this patronizing idea that blogs are some new fad. Blogging is at least six or seven years old now, and while that’s not long in absolute terms, remember that mass internet access is only about twice that old.

Blogging will no doubt fade, as a fad, but it will surely be here to stay for decades, for the simple reason that it is a low-cost publishing platform. That means low barriers to entry, and it means a lot of schlocky, low-grade content. But it also means more excellent work published daily than you could ever hope to read - for free.

It makes no more sense to blame ‘blogs’ for the failure of a crummy movie than it does ‘magazines’. The term is far, far too general to have any meaning in that context…

6 Responses to “This Is The Anti-Blogging Case?”

1 mtl Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 12:34 am
“uses the tired analogy of a child spouting off without the embrace of the editor parent.”

Its worked for Ted Kennedy.
2 too many steves Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 5:36 am
I would differ with you on this “Blogging is at least six or seven years old now…” in this sense: I view blogging as being very similar to the pamplet printing of 300 years ago; interested (and sometimes excitable) folk publishing their thoughts and ideas. You allude to this when you refer to blogging as a “low-cost publishing platform”.

And, talk about childishness, it strikes me as puerile to assume people aren’t able to separate the wheat from the chaff of blogging. They’ve demonstrated, over time, an ability to glean the good ideas from the bad. And isn’t the quantity and variety of opinion available through blogging a sort of check & balance, an independent editor, if you will? It certainly is much easier to call BU** SH** in the blogosphere.

A silly piece, really, or, if I allow myself to be snarky and cynical, is he just taking advantage of a popular meme to get some attention?
3 Dmac Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 8:34 am
Too bad the bloggers didn’t help “Serenity” do better at the box office; although the fact that the TV series didn’t run for long probably hurt it’s overall chances as well - not to mention any recognizable movie stars - and a lack of major marketing support, and…ah, forget it. Still liked the film, at any rate.
4 Dennis Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 10:22 am
The essay may be something of an incoherent response to the occasional bouts of blogger triumphalism. In that sense, I agree that some bloggers do get delusions of grandeur (*cough*Kos*cough*). But overall, I see it something like what tms said. I imagine most bloggers are people who used to keep journals, or people who used to read some column in the paper, shake their head in frustration at some missed point, and then go about their day.

I think Glenn Reynolds has made a frequent point which often gets ignored in these kind of “whither bloggers?” pieces. People blog (and in his case, podcast too) because it’s fun. As long as that’s the motive, it’s ultimately irrelevant whether it pays, or whether it leads to successful elections or movie openings.
5 The Ugly American Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Thanks for the link Mark. You know I thought the same thing TMS. It could just be an attention grab from Kluger.
6 TechSpot » Anti-Blogging Says:
November 8th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
[…] This Is The Anti-Blogging Case? As an occasional blogger myself, I’m still wary of the phenomenon. On one hand, it can be liberating to log on and spout off, unencumbered by editorial oversight…more. […]