This is an interesting article about blogging...and how it does not measure up to print media in terms of content.
Are blogs here just to entertain the mob?
Nobody wants to be an imbecile. Part of it, I think, is that everyone likes shows and entertainments. Mobs are exciting. People also like validation of what they already believe; the Internet, like all free markets, has a way of gratifying the mediocrity of the masses.
Interesting. We could apply this rule to a lot of things and ask ourselves about business or church or government.
Posted by tripp at December 26, 2006 03:05 PMWe could and should apply this as you suggest. There has always been a lowest common denominator aspect to large form social intercourse. That is, as long as it truly is open and honest. The interesting thing about blogs is that they sometimes lure individual voices out into a public space that they would normally eschew. The unfortunate thing is that the writing is somewhat ephemeral. There are sparks and heat and light, and then tomorrow comes and here's a new subject.
The problem with the editorial is that it resorts to the all or nothing approach that characterizes discourse today. If blogs aren't influential all of the time, then they must not be important. Like anything else, they have added an interesting dimension to the public sphere, but that sphere is so large that only the "mass media" can really wield influence. However, it is possible that as computers become truly ubiquitous, the disenfranchised may find it to be an interesting way to lead a revolution.
In any event, they are more than an entertainment, but based on what I read, there is not much that is really changing the world either. Charisma and charm don't translate well to the blog, and the public seems to only be roused from their routines when they encounter those two very personal attributes.
Posted by: Rich at December 26, 2006 07:07 PMConnection/Connectivity is interesting. That's where I think the strength of the web is. But the trick is to link to those who are in opposition to you...and to do so in a spirit of inquiry and dialogue (over-used words). This is why I have my various seminaries in the lefthand column. I group them, but we all meet here at the blog...and at their blogs. It's a good thing.
It is the sum of the conversations that change things on the internet, not one particular blog. I think that is what the author misses...and churches or business miss.
We look for the one voice and not the totality of voices. This means that many of us wait in silence hoping for the one voice. It means that we try to drown one another out in order to be the one voice.
The web has the potential of teaching us how to speak as comunities..."multi-valently."
Posted by: Tripp at December 27, 2006 08:17 PM