I think they insulted you, too.
Every conceivable belief is on the scene, but the collective prose, by and large, is homogeneous: A tone of careless informality prevails; posts oscillate between the uselessly brief and the uselessly logorrheic; complexity and complication are eschewed; the humor is cringe-making, with irony present only in its conspicuous absence; arguments are solipsistic; writers traffic more in pronouncement than persuasion . . .
Ouch. That wounds me.
Well, it would wound me if I cared what this guy thought about me and my blog. Or if I didn’t know this criticism was coming from a media organization that embraced the blog phenomenon with their Law Blog and Tech Blog and the rest of the WSJ blogs.
Put’s most of the editorial in perspective, doesn’t it?
The blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think. Journalism requires journalists, who are at least fitfully confronting the digital age. The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage. Instead, they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps.
I agree, to some extent about the significance of most blogs. There are a select few that do have the power to influence, and millions more who think they do but don’t. I’ve met bloggers who think they’re important, and I never have the heart to tell them normal people could care less.
But what really irks me about this piece, what really gets me going….I, for one, am getting really tired of people in the news business contending that only ‘Journalists’ can practice true journalism. Is there some sort of professional proficiency exam one must pass to practice journalism and call oneself a ‘Journalist’? Something similar to the Bar Exam or the CPA Exam? There’s a state licensing board that reviews credentials and qualifications and issues a license permitting oneself to be called a ‘Journalist’?
Yeah, didn’t think so.
So what makes someone a ‘Journalist’? That requires defining what journalism really is. To do so I turn to my friend Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, a ‘Journalist’ is
Journalism is a discipline of collecting, analyzing, verifying, and presenting news regarding current events, trends, issues and people. Those who practice journalism are known as journalists.
I can name seven bloggers off the top of my head that do just that. I’m sure y’all can add more to that list. These bloggers can’t call themselves ‘Journalists’ why? Because they don’t work for a traditional news agency isn’t a good enough answer for me. The WSJ and the rest of the MSM will have to come up with something better than that.
This is thinly veiled elitism at best, and complete popycock at worst. You want to talk about being disillusioned when it comes to significance? Most ‘Journalists’ in the traditional (MSM and elite) media are more so than any blogger.
Woody Says: December 21st, 2006 at 5:58 pmBaahhh! It’s just the losers mouthing off.
Woody
Wai Says: December 23rd, 2006 at 1:30 pmHe’s right though on many points.
“The Internet is very good at connecting and isolating people who are in agreement, not so good at engaging those who aren’t. The petty interpolitical feuding mainly points out that someone is a liar or an idiot or both.” - the perfect example of which is on Cam Edwards’ blog. Does anybody remember what happened before he started to moderate the comments?
I don’t see it as an insult, but more as food for thought.
“Leftward fatuities (absurdity) too are easily found: The fatuity matters more than the politics. If the blogs have enthusiastically endorsed Joseph Conrad’s judgment of newspapering–”written by fools to be read by imbeciles”–they have also demonstrated a remarkable ecumenicalism (unity) in filling out that same role themselves.”
By this statement, I take it that if we are to do as the Left and the MSM do, then we would be no better than them and that the chasm between the Left and the Right will only grow wider.
Woody Says: December 24th, 2006 at 9:55 amAh, but you must look at who is CAUSING the chasm. ‘Taint us on the right! We haven’t moved off our morals, etics, or the Constitution. We ARE better. There is no other truth. It’ll be a cold day in the “Hot Place” before I follow any leads to the left! All I’m doing is holding ground.
Woody
Wai Says: December 25th, 2006 at 6:19 pmYou’re right that we’re not the ones causing the chasm. Those on the Left who feel they have to control and micro-manage every aspect of everyone’s lives should never hold any position of authority. And those who are there need to be voted out. Our Bill Of Rights should never be open for debate, but sadly, it is by those who hold and abuse that power (i.e.: Kennedy, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, Clinton, et. al.). What hath Hell wrought, now that the Democrats have retaken the House and the Senate? I predict that those (gun-owners) who voted Democrat in the last election cycle just to spite Pres. Bush, will only have themselves to blame when new gun bans are imposed (which I hope will NEVER happen). We Conservatives (and gun owners) have gained much ground in the dark dark days since Slick Willie. We can’t give an inch, because if we do, they’ll take it all. Oh yeah, and by the way, now that the Democrats have taken back the House and the Senate, why are gasoline prices still rising??? Didn’t they say they’ll bring gas prices back down?
Terry Says: December 26th, 2006 at 7:42 amPerhaps I see things a little different. I see this guy’s piece as “sour grapes”. I think what he is trying to do is to diminish the influence of those not in the MSM, even though the bloggers have more common sense than many of the journalists. His “high-falutin’” language immediately tags him as an eliteist in my book.
Wai Says: December 26th, 2006 at 3:31 pmThat might be true that his piece may be “sour grapes,” but the Wall Street Journal is a Right-leaning newspaper, and I don’t get the impression that he was trying to insult us. Rather, I think he’s just stating the obvious that the internet has connected like-minded people who have now been given and voice that can be heard ’round-the-globe. And that might be scaring him a bit, because if everyone is reading us, then who’s reading him? And I’ll bet it’s scaring the bejeezus out of the MSM because they’re no longer being taken seriously by those of us who want to know more than what they’re propagandizing to us.
He may come across as an elitist because of his fancy words, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using “high-falutin’” language; that’s the nature of the Wall Street Journal. And there’s nothing wrong with trying to elevate one’s vocabulary. I have to use “high-falutin’” language too in my line of work, but outside of work, I’m just like everybody else. I try not to cuss in my comments, but if I were talking to you one-on-one, you’d swear I was a short Chinese trucker. LOL!
Terry Says: December 28th, 2006 at 10:28 amThe Wall Street Journal is a bit different. While the editorial page is normally conservative in its thought and expression, the newsroom side of the paper is more liberal.
While I don’t read it religiously enough to say I know who the author of the piece was, I suspect that an occasional liberal will have a column on the editorial page. Thus, it is entirely possible for a newsroom liberal to have access to the conservative side of the paper.
Now, having NEVER met a short Chinese trucker, you have now managed to really pique my curiosity. I may have to go research that aspect.