Let’s face it; blogging is a new medium. There are people out there who’ve never even heard the term and many more who don’t understand how it works. Most of the time, the best we bloggers can do is try to educate and wait until blogging achieves a modicum of respect with the general public.
It’s because of the rampant ignorance of blogging that the practice occasionally comes under fire from elitists of traditional media like David Bullard. I found his rant against blogging (link condom applied) via a post on Bruce Clay and couldn’t help but laugh at the absurdity. To think that a self-proclaimed journalist who values quality and integrity could write something like this is simply tragic. David displays a profound ignorance of blogging to pass such harsh judgment. I’d like to piece apart his comments now and see how many of them actually apply.
“Most blog sites are the air guitars of journalism. They’re cobbled together by people who wouldn’t stand a hope in hell of getting a job in journalism, mainly because they have very little to say. It’s rather sad how many people think the tedious minutiae of their lives will be of any interest to anyone else.”
Here, David appears to be making the assumption that all blogs are intended to broadcast the news in the limited scope in which he defines it. No, most bloggers aren’t outstanding writers. Nor are many bloggers necessarily writing about anything of wide public interest.
But here’s a news flash: Most bloggers don’t blog because they want to be journalists. Most of us just want a soap box to stand on and talk to our friends. In fact, very few blogs are intended to have any sort of global appeal. We talk about what we care about. If you don’t want to hear it, then stop reading.
“Many bloggers prefer to remain anonymous…”
Hello, my name is Stephen. That’s my real name. No anonymity here. Sure, I’m only one example, but I know dozens of other bloggers who don’t hide their identities.
“The content of their sites is so moronic that even their best friends would disown them if they knew they were the authors.”
Quite the contrary in my case. Most of my friends read my blog because I’m the author. In fact, friends and family are the main constituents of many bloggers’ target audiences. Whether or not the content of such sites is “moronic” is really a matter of opinion. Certainly they may seem trivial or uninteresting to casual readers. For the target audience, though, their content is quite valuable.
“Unlike the world of newsprint, there are no rules out there in the blogosphere and that makes it a very confusing place for the consumer.”
This one I’ll agree on. The blogosphere is downright chaotic and finding valuable information can often be difficult, even for the natives.
“I… object to some anonymous, scrofulous nerd…”
Again, not all of us are anonymous, although I’d say a lot of us are nerds (I know I am). Props to David on the use of “scrofulous,” though; that’s definitely my word of the day. For those of you who don’t care to look it up, it basically means amoral. Morality being a subjective thing, it’s impossible to say any blog is scrofulous except in one’s own opinion. Personally, I consider David’s column to be scrofulous, but that’s just me.
“…pumping meaningless drivel into cyberspace at all hours of the day and night…”
Like morality, meaning is also subjective. What may seem uninteresting to you could have profound interest to someone else. It’s all about intended audience. David should consider whether or not he qualifies as such before labeling a blog’s content to be “meaningless drivel.”
“…simply because he can’t find a girl to sleep with him.”
It’s a fact that, on the average, married individuals are more sexually satisfied than single individuals. That being said, I have been happily married for several years now. In fact, I’ve been married for the entirety of my blog’s existence. I won’t go into it any further for fear of my wife’s reprisal. 
“These are the sort of w ackos who gun down their fellow students at university.”
I’ll echo Bruce Clay on this one. What could drive any reasonable person to make such a rude and politically incorrect statement? Statistically, I’ll concede there are enough bloggers out there that a few are bound to be psychotically antisocial. However, the vast majority of us are just average people who’d never dream of such a thing. David should be ashamed for such a grossly rude statement. Nice typo on “w ackos,” by the way. Very professional. What was that David was saying about journalistic standards?
“So what’s the difference? How come newspapers and magazines have to carry the names of their editors and publishers and watch their content and websites don’t?”
Because websites aren’t newspapers. Most blogs are a one-man show. There’s no editor standing between me and the “Post” button on my blog. Sure, that means objectionable content gets distributed along with the good stuff. Again, if you don’t want to hear it, then stop reading. Nobody’s forcing it on you.
“…maybe it’s time the print journalists named and shamed some of the more offensive anonymous bloggers and published their physical addresses.”
More power to you on that one. I’d like nothing better than to see people who spread hate get unmasked for all to see. Whether or not I agree with what they’re saying, though, I do believe in their right to say it (at least in the United States). Freedom of speech is both a blessing and a curse, after all.
The point I’m trying to make is simple. Bloggers are not journalists; some bloggers are certainly trying to compete with mainstream media, but that doesn’t mean all bloggers should be held to the same standards as professionals. It is not useful or accurate to put us all in the same category, because most of us are doing little more than practicing a hobby.
Furthermore, not all bloggers are bad bloggers. I’ve never posted anything that could be considered hate material. I’m not anonymous and I don’t post entirely useless content. I like to think I’m just an average blogger; I talk about the things I care about and I post to my own standards. I don’t think my blog is “meaningless drivel” and I don’t appreciate being lumped together with the lowest common denominator of the blogosphere.
I can only imagine that David is venting some personal vendetta against a blogger or some blog-inspired media legislation. I can’t imagine he really believes all blogs to be worthless. After all, anyone who spends time surfing the blogosphere without bias will find both the good and the bad.
Then again, maybe David just wanted to get a rise out of the blogging community. If that’s the case, it definitely worked on me. People like this need to take a good look in the mirror before going on self-righteous rants about the evils of blogging or the superiority of traditional media.