I find this fascinating:
One gets the uneasy sense that the blogosphere is a potpourri of opinion and little more. The opinions are occasionally informed, often tiresomely cranky and never in doubt. Skepticism, restraint, a willingness to suspect judgment and to put oneself in the background — these would not seem to be a blogger’s trademarks.
My question: Exactly how is this different from opinion journalism as currently practiced? We got cranky. We got occasionally informed. We got never in doubt. We got big personalities.
I would suggest, in a right properly and academically qualified way, that “blogs” making up the ”blogosphere” are part of a thing that is too big (and too important) to characterize in the sweeping and dismissive fashion of Michael Skube’s column (setting aside the journalistic arrogance for another time). There’s certainly a lot of nonsense in the blogosphere. Hell, there’s a lot of nonsense in today’s newspaper masquerading as opinion journalism. That there is nonsense in something as large as the blogosphere is, well duh, to be expected. I would suggest, however, that nonsense has no place in something as comparatively small–and professionally edited (?)–as a newspaper.
Jay Rosen delivers the big smack-down. My qualified academic reaction: Woooooooooooo!
(Editor’s Note: I also find it fascinating that an academic would ridicule anyone for stridency. Man, have you ever been in a room full of eggheads at a conference? Now, I have claimed on this blog that the proper academic attitude may be seen in the desire to be proven wrong, i.e. the search for knowledge and truth above one’s vision of how the world works. This doesn’t mean we can’t be certain. It means we have to be careful. You may note a hint of certainty in this post. That’s because I’m certain of the things I’ve claimed–very little really. If I’m wrong–show me. I’m totally cool with that.)