Cheap and pathetic experiment to attract folks to the blog. Since I can't duplicate Sonic Frog's exceptional ability to draw the attention of the Instapundit crowd, I will resort to tabloid blogging.
After all, aren't my opinions and musings worthy of huge, adoring audiences?
Actually, probably not. As I have observed in the past, blogging is one of the most self indulgent activities of the modern age. It provides the unique feeling of self-righteous confidence with the ruthless editorial ability of a Chinese newspaper. If someone comments unfavorable - zap - deleteorama!
It is remarkably satisfying to me to foist my opinions out onto my site and occassionally in the comment areas of other blogs and news sites. I routinely receive synopsis e-mails from the Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post (I can barely stand to look at this site), Forbes and others with a list of topical news and opinion stories.
A friedn of mine formerly worked for Bloomberg as a financial reporter. he is a serious journalist with some extensive experience in China and the Pacific Rim. He confides in me that the print media is in worse shape than is being reported, even by the "alternate media". There are wide spread contractions, layoffs and consolidations coming - the likes of which will alter forever our methods of seeing news and information.
Far from some vast global conspiracy to control all the news through a few easily manipulated media - we are devolving to a niche arena where good information will be provided at a high price while the rest of the world will have to contend with rumor, unsubstantiated gossip and Wikipedia.
I have nothing against Wikipedia, however, time and time again it has proven itself to be seriously flawed, subject to gross error and even outright lies. Long ago our world was linked by travelers who carried news, mail and stories from village to village. Fact was almost impossible to come by and tales evolved into myth as the stories distorted and changed over time.
It seems that we are returning to that time. The failure of a robust and reliable mass media is at hand. Lasting barely two hundred years, a free and objective press is collapsing to a network of dedicated fanaticists and the occassional "big story" discussion board.
Hmm.
Maybe there is hope for my site yet...
10 comments:
Excellent blog you have here, I've added you to the list at The Lay Scientist.
I'm quite interested by the way mainstream media is dealing with "New Media". It seems to me that far from being threatened, the MSM are just buying up or taking over anything new and successful. Most bloggers can't compete with the audiences of blogs in the websites of newspapers like The Guardian, and even the biggest have a fraction of the audience of someone like the BBC.
The problem for me then isn't so much the "conspiracy" aspect, as the fact that one poorly-educated "specialist" science (or any other area) editor can have an undue influence over public debate...
As for blogging I think the ego-side of it is true. If you want to blog successfully, you have to build your blog and your writing as a brand, and that means shameless self-promotion.
Anyway, good work, keep it up.
Well, if you get them nekkid Britney pics...
You have given original reporting before (the exercise down Chile way)... so you are still in Reynold's Army of Davids.
Major and Martin, thanks. I think the "army of Davids" philosophy is a strong endorsement for continued work in the blogosphere - it is the verification and consolidation which was provided by the major news outlets.
Can we really rely on HuffPost, Drudge or even Science Blogs? Each of these sites has a bias and none of them have any fact checking capability.
"After all, aren't my opinions and musings worthy of huge, adoring audiences?"
Of course they are, CD. So keep on blogging! :)
Thanks E, although I did not intend for this to become the poor CD party. What is of more interest to me is the ability of the few to influence the opinion of the many. In the consumer goods world we call this the Oprah effect.
Oprah is a great entertainer and a savvy marketer - but she doesn't know anything about science, politics or a host of other topics she proffers on her shows. It's all about her ratings.
To Martin's comment - how do we insure that the attractive falsehood is not selected by the public over the unattractive truth?
And to your point -
I know that McCain is a homophobic christian fascist neo-con because I read it in an email forwarded to me by way of my yoga instructor's live in lover's step-sister's life coach. Each of them a dedicated earth and peace lover committed to speaking truth to power and they do not speak erroneously! Additionally, I read it in the NY Times. or the Post. Or the Chronicle. I don't recall which. They, unlike the conservative New York Post and Wall Street Journal, are never wrong either!
Seems it happens on both sides of the fence...
There is no dark side of the moon, it's all dark.
the difference being, to my knowledge and correct me if I am wrong, my e-mail actually exists....http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/30/politics/washingtonpost/main4218135.shtml
The Mccain one sent from the yoga instructor does not. Unless you are talking about when Mccain addressed his wife about seeing her next tuesday....as reported by the ever popular closet mo, matt drudge...
http://www.drudge.com/news/106692/author-mccain-called-wife-cunt-trollop
We are returning to the 1890's and the market will, at a certain point, reward the honest broker. We just have'nt reached the saturation point yet. But we will. :)
S/F
MudShark
And how about that Charlie Crist getting married, huh? Wow! I never saw THAT one coming! (Does incredulous tone come off in comments? Oh, I hope so. I do hope so!)
What form will the honest broker take? Resources, connections and objectivity.
A little lacking in today's market
Post a Comment