Saturday, July 14, 2007
The WSJ writes about blogs
The Wall Street Journal has given over the front page of its weekend "Pursuits" section to blogs, declaring 2007 the 10th anniversary of blogging. There is nothing particularly earth-shattering about the story, but it does solicit discussion of blogs and blogging from various famous people. We learn, for example, that Tom Wolfe thinks blogs are dumb and unrealiable, offering into evidence the inaccuracies in the "Tom Wolfe" entry in the blog-like Wikipedia. (I have corrected the entry to include Tom Wolfe's complaint about it, which correction reveals at least one advantage of the open-source editing of blogs and wikis.) We also learn that Newt Gringrich reads RedState.com, the Corner, and Powerline, and that James Taranto's faves include Mickey Kaus, Glenn Reynolds, and Tom Maguire, neither of which is surprising. As is often the case, though, Newt makes the most interesting connections:
Home Depot redefined an industry by catering to customers who preferred to fix their homes themselves rather than rely on professional repairmen. Dell Computer revolutionized the computing industry by allowing customers to design their own computers instead of purchasing the prepackaged, recommended configurations.
It may not seem obvious, but blogging is part of this same social trend....
In politics, supporters of a candidate or party are increasingly dissatisfied with simply putting up yard signs or making scripted phone calls; they want those in power to listen and respond to them as well. They also don't trust professional politicians to do what is right without constant supervision.
My questions back to Newt: If blogging had existed from the start of the Clinton administration, what about that time would have been different? Would early warnings in the blogosphere have alerted the Democrats to the Gingrich "revolution" that brought Republicans into power in 1994 in time to ward off disaster? Would the lefty 'sphere have blunted the attacks on Hillarycare and other early Clinton-era political fumbles? Would distributed investigative reporting from the right have made it more difficult for the Clintons to stonewall the various Whitewater investigations? Would the blogosphere have warned Newt himself away from various hardball tactics that backfired (the government shut-down and impeachment come immediately to mind), or would the right have pushed House Republicans even harder? Would an active political blogosphere have changed outcomes at these critical junctures, or not?
Answer carefully, Grasshopper.
3 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Sat Jul 14, 01:27:00 PM:
Would an active political blogosphere have changed outcomes at these critical junctures, or not?
Democrat levels of hubris were similar to Republican levels of hubris now. Which is to say, they had no interest what so ever in listening to the public.
So the answer must be no.
Blogs may well be the "canary in the coal mine", but the vast majority of politicians just see them, if they see them at all, as a resource to be clumsily exploited rather than a harbinger.
By 
, at
Sat Jul 14, 01:46:00 PM:
Ah, a whole Saturday with nothing to do but slice into shreds the words of bloggers, pundits and politicos everywhere.
It doesn't get any better than this, folks.
"We learn, for example, that Tom Wolfe thinks blogs are dumb and unrealiable..."
Apparently, so is somebody's spelling. :)
Personally, I tend to think that ol' Tom is right:
1. For the most part, the entire blogosphere incorporates a tiny, miniscule portion of the populace and is, in the final analysis, nothing more than a place where sit-at-homes can congregate and feel some sense of self-worthiness. They very rarely actually do any real, tangible good. While I'm sure the bloggers are feeling mighty proud about the thwarting of the recent Amnesty Bill, it was really talk radio that did it. The numbers don't lie. For every reader at TigerHawk.com, Rush Limbaugh reaches a thousand listeners.
So, in that light, the blogs could easily be called "dumb", but, by the same token, they give a sense of self-worthiness to both the bloggers and the readers, and there's nothing overtly wrong or misplaced in desiring such a feeling.
2. I'd say a lot of bloggers are unreal-iable. :)
As far as them being "unreliable" goes, the point's not even debatable. "Blogger" by definition, alone, means "unreliable" or "unsubstantiated". That's why they're bloggers and not journalists!
Next, we have this interesting little conundrum:
James Taranto, a blogger, is portrayed as a non-blogger who reads blogger Glenn Reynolds, who actually is a non-blogger.
Allow me to explain:
By standard definition, Reynolds isn't a "blogger". He's a "links guy", just like Allah at HotAir is. He links to an article, throws out a remark or two (usually non-committal, if you'll notice), then the inevitable "Read the whole thing." Oftentimes, it's nothing more than a one-word:
OUCH.
Taranto, on the other hand, in the top part of his page (not the silly stuff at the bottom) offers insightful, incisive commentary about every link, as a good blogger is expected to do. Sure, he posts once a day by a deadline, but let me ask you this:
If suddenly Tiger started posting all his daily articles at once, by a certain time of the day, would you suddenly be claiming he wasn't a blogger?
Of course not. And the fact that Taranto posts for a major league news outlet doesn't automatically make him not a blogger -- practically all major news outlets these days have a "Bloggers" section.
But okay, enough with the warm-ups. Let's get down to the real meat of the matter:
Not one sentence in Newt's three paragraphs (that Tiger quoted) is true.
"Home Depot redefined an industry by catering to customers who preferred to fix their homes themselves rather than rely on professional repairmen."
Incorrect. For decades before Home Depot came along, there were large DIY yards around. The S.F. Bay Area had a huge chain called Hubbard-Johnson that had everything one would need for the do-it-yourself project. All Home Depot did was bring it in on a massive scale, driving all out the local hardware stores and lumber yards, the exact same way that Staples, Office Depot and OfficeMax drove out all the mom 'n' pop stationary stores and computer stores.
"Dell Computer revolutionized the computing industry by allowing customers to design their own computers instead of purchasing the prepackaged, recommended configurations."
Incorrect, and for two reasons. One, it was only the big box stores that sold ready-made computers. Any 'regular' computer store built it to whatever specs you wanted. And two, I'm not so sure upgrading to a DVD-ROM from a CD-ROM while shopping online is really "designing" a computer, if you follow me.
"It may not seem obvious [I'll say], but blogging is part of this same social trend...."
What a laugh. Home Depot and Dell Computers are massive retail organizations worth billions of dollars, affecting the lives (for better or worse) of millions of people.
Comparing the impact of a couple of giant retail chains to a bunch of dweebs sitting around in their underwear writing about things which they usually aren't, to be honest, qualified to write about is about as disingenuous as it gets.
"In politics, supporters of a candidate or party are increasingly dissatisfied with simply putting up yard signs or making scripted phone calls; they want those in power to listen and respond to them as well."
New Flash for Newt: For the past 10,000 years, people have "wanted those in power to listen and respond to them."
Another News Flash for Newt: For the past 10,000 years they've been more-or-less ignored, and will continue to be. As well they should. All intelligent people understand that the vast hordes of people are sadly educated and will usually follow where their emotions and common sense lead them.
Common sense example: Price-gouging is bad, therefore anti-price-gouging laws must be good, right? For any of you who answered "Yes!", please go sit in the corner for an hour and contemplate the greater mysteries of life.
"They also don't trust professional politicians to do what is right without constant supervision."
Uh-huh. "Constant supervision", is that it, Newt? Tell me something, big guy. If you're elected president, are you saying you'd like to have five or six Cindy Sheehans sitting there next to you in the Oval Office 'supervising' you?
Just asking.
The thought of having a bunch of professional politicians being 'supervised' by a mob of uneducated amateurs is just downright scary.
And back to Tiger:
"Would an active political blogosphere have changed outcomes at these critical junctures, or not?
"Answer carefully, Grasshopper."
Not, oh great Shaolin Master. They would have been even less effective than they are now, simply because they would have been newer and less-frequented by Joe Citizen. It would have been the quintessential example of 'the voice crying out in the wilderness'. If I were going to write a satire on it, I'd call it "Mighty Malkin And Her Horde Of 200". 200 people screaming for her version of moral justice is still just 200 screaming people.
Big deal.
All in all, I have a lot of respect for the bloggers. Some of them, like TH, offer extremely insightful commentary. A day without Ace of Spades is like a day without sunshine. And, for the most part, I applaud Michelle, the boys at PowerLine, Ed Morrissey, Hugh Hewitt, Dean Barnett, and all the rest. The right-wing bloggers may have their little faults, certainly, but they sure beat the hell out of the alternative.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Jul 16, 09:37:00 AM:
Blogs are also quite self-selective. Most people tend to read ones that resonate with their thinking (Hello Princeton grads). Some people read blogs for opposition research (Hello Sen. Reid). Some people read blogs just to disagree and argue. (CC?) And some people read blogs just to scribble on the walls with their crayons because they like the pretty colors. (Me, I suppose)
