Initially, I planned to excerpt from Andrew's post, but I did not find a logical cut-off spot. I hope he doesn't mind that I use his entire commentary. Pop on over to Andrew's site to read the words he quotes from Thomas Jefferson, who is no longer included in the recent revision of the social studies curriculum by the Texas Board of Education.
"I believe the blogosphere first truly gained traction in America for a good reason. There is something about blogging's freedom from the constraints of conventional journalism that captures an American ideal: civic engagement totally free of anyone else's influence. It is an ideal of a fourth estate hostile to authorities public and private, suspicious of conventional wisdom, and, above all, confident, even when confidence seems absurd, in the power of the word and the argument to make a difference ... in the end. The rise of this type of citizen journalism has, in my view, increasingly exposed some of the laziness and corruption in the professional version - even as there is still a huge amount to treasure and value in the legacy media, and a huge amount of partisan, mendacious claptrap on the blogs.
But what distinguishes the best of the new media is what could still be recaptured by the old: the mischievous spirit of journalism and free, unfettered inquiry. Journalism has gotten too pompous, too affluent, too self-loving, and too entwined with the establishment of both wings of American politics to be what we need it to be.
We need it to be fearless and obnoxious, out of a conviction that more speech, however much vulgarity and nonsense it creates, is always better than less speech. In America, this is a liberal spirit in the grandest sense of that word - but also a conservative one, since retaining that rebelliousness is tending to an ancient American tradition, from the Founders onward. (My emphasis)
....
Here at the Dish, we try and we fail at this every day. But we have never for a second doubted the imperative of this complicated, difficult and exhilarating task."
I echo Andrew's final paragraph, except for the part about never doubting, for I doubt, on occasion.
Andrew's post is heartening to me, since I've heard and read much about the approaching death of the blogosphere. If blogs die, then they die, and so be it. The new online gathering spots, which appear with the speed of storms off the west coast of Africa during hurricane season, are not much to my taste, I'm sad to say, since many of my friends are there.
If Andrew is correct about "fearless and obnoxious", then I have a way to go.
I'm not so sure blogs are dying any more than painting is dying. They've been announcing painting's obituary since the invention of photography in the 1830s. It hasn't happened.
ReplyDeleteI use Facebook mostly to keep up with friends and post little things for them, and to post my work for prospective curators and collectors (until I can afford to have a website made).
I use blogs for longer more ambitious writing for the larger world. The political blogs don't appear to be declining in readers. The same is true for religious blogs.
I still get new readers on my little blog.
It will probably turn out that people will continue to blog and to read blogs even as they use Facebook and Twitter, just like people still watch TV, listen to the radio, and go to movies. Remember how all of those were supposed to die off?
Blogs are worthwhile if only because they have put a little fear into the lazy and cozy-with-politicians members of the old media and perhaps made at least some of them do better reporting. Of course, blogs will never replace old media, because we feed on them.
ReplyDeleteI don't think blogs are dying. It is completely impossible to do anything thoughtful or analytical of any length on Facebook. As for Twitter, ...??! So, those sites will never replace the blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Counterlight, anyway. There was a piece in the paper today announcing the death of the novel. The novel hasn't died, and doesn't show any signs of dying. Technology changes and older forms of it become obsolete, but the urge to communicate in particular ways does not.
Mimi, I think what Andrew means by "fearless and obnoxious" is to call it how you see it, robustly, with no concern about whether you offend - in fact, to aim to offend, if you perceive that to be necessary. It's not about whether or not you sometimes doubt yourself, which is only about trying to get it right, anyway. And I think you do all of that. So, I do not think you do have a way to go.
ReplyDeleteCathy, what can I say? Thank you muchly.
ReplyDeleteCounterlight, you are one of my blogger heroes.
ReplyDeleteI have become care-free on my blog, moving slowly towards Anglican-anarchism.
ReplyDeleteAdrian, to me, the Archbishop of Anglicanism appears fairly anarchic in his Anglicanism, but not going in the same direction as you.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it wouldn't be proper anarchy if everyone was going in the same direction.
ReplyDeleteI personally think Anglicanism could do with a bit more anarchy, and that what RW is trying to bring in is taking it away from anarchic principles.
Cathy, the rabble in the CofE could be stirring the pot a bit more, in my humble opinion, although I suppose it's none of my business.
ReplyDeleteThe Archbishop of Anglicanism seems to me to stray away from the Anglican path, and that IS my business, because he appears to want to set himself up as a sort of Anglican pope, which is an oxymoron, as I see it.