possibly noteworthy wrote:
There is some truth here.

The larger problem with blogs, it seems to me, is quality. Most of them are pretty awful. Many, even some with large followings, are downright appalling.

Meh. I found this article asinine when I first read it last week and was hoping it'd pass quietly into the abyss, but I guess not.

I find it painfully ironic that an opinion piece which goes on and on about the lack of originality, research and genuine critical thinking in the blog world, itself offers essentially no elucidation or original thoughts of any kind. Bloggers and technologists have been self analyzing the echo chamber effect and the reality of a low signal to noise ratio from the very start.

That's *why* places like Memestreams and Digg and technorati and all the various social networks exist -- we're trying to find the signal in the noise. If one wishes to make an argument that we're not there yet and need to do better, well, gee whiz, thanks. We know that, and no one's more aware of it than the bloggers who write their piece and want it to be read.

Mr. Rago could have explored the ways in which social networks and collaborative filtering are trying to improve the situation, but instead makes a passing gesture at how chaotic the scene is.

He glibly jots "there's more 'choice'," implying that choice isn't necessarily a good thing, but not going any deeper. Well, again, smart people already know that. We've read Schwartz, among others, and at least an acknowledgment that it's not saying anything new would've gone a long way towards softening my opinion of this piece. But that would have undermined his whole silly point.

Again, a lot of true things are said here, but little to none of it could be called original.

He stabs at the political blogs and cites the anonymous critic, saying "Some critics reproach the blogs for the coarsening and increasing volatility of political life." Again, little analysis is offered. Is it really that the blogs are responsible for this effect or merely a response to a coarsening and volatility already being propagated by our actual leaders in congress and the White House? Or is it merely that when you give voice where there was none before, it will always start off shrill? Those of us who care about this space actually have thought about these things, and it's disingenuous and a little insulting to parade about as some kind of whistle blower when the "industry," such as it is, is already largely working on the very problems Mr. Rago points out.

Again, he's not wrong, just hypocritical, bandying some lovely vocabulary in service to the tiniest shred of analysis, reducing what might have been an insightful work into an apology for the MSM and a useless attack on a scene which already knows it's own weaknesses.

We're told that "[j]ournalism requires journalists," a wonderful and true statement, but also one that I read, here, on a blog, months and months ago.

"[P]retty awful" indeed.

He stabs at the political blogs and cites the anonymous critic, saying "Some critics reproach the blogs for the coarsening and increasing volatility of political life."

Hearing the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal accuse someone else of blind partisanship is like hearing Phillip Morris talk about the need for safer consumer products.

Decius wrote:

He stabs at the political blogs and cites the anonymous critic, saying "Some critics reproach the blogs for the coarsening and increasing volatility of political life."

Hearing the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal accuse someone else of blind partisanship is like hearing Phillip Morris talk about the need for safer consumer products.

Indeed, though, in fairness, I don't think he was speaking so much to the partisanship as much as the level of the discourse. Deep partisanism is a pre-requisite for that, but I think this guy would like to hold on to the notion of civilized partisanship. It's a fools errand of course, because if the basline is "this person is morally wrong" then civility is that much harder to hold on to.

It's all bullshit, because civility and respect are the very things that have been eroding of late, and that's largely, i feel, because the MSM isn't wearing any clothes. They purport to be balanced and civil and calm, but the people are seeing through that. If you want to destroy civil discourse, demonstrate that it's worthless by parodying it in the guise of practicing it.

I've said before, I'd rather hear from a raving fanatic whose position is clear and unequivocal than from a moderate sounding "journalist" whose credentials and background are unknown, whose corporate culture is likely bent either along political lines or else so mired in the need to be marketable that they can't be objective. Obviously I'd *prefer* to hear from a dedicated, honest and skillful journalist. I'm just not sure how many of those are left, and sadly the system is so untrustworthy in my eyes, I have a tougher and tougher time finding them.