I think you have hit on a hard truth about a significant portion of the more well known blogs - they tend to interlink back and forth in a perpetual circle, with topics fed by the more traditional media - literally a self-grinding axe.

This is unsurprising in of itself as the Internet is, by nature, a communicative medium, one that permits the linkages and formation of (for lack of a better description) multi-tiered tribes of like-minded individuals. once they form, these groups tend to reinforce each others belief systems and opinions and (this is a subjective observation by the way) move towards exclusion and minimization of individuals that disagree.

For hard journalistic news, blogs are quite limited, however I find that for specific topics of interest, they can offer extremely useful aggregates of information and contacts - provided you recognize the limitations on the information being supplied. I've often found the particular bloggers commentary on a particular article to offer a spin that is totally subjective and often at complete odds with the actual article content.

Somewhere there's a PHD thesis-in-being lurking in a study of the social and informational groupings of virtual mobs....

Good observations, Dean.

I most recently got fed up with the network focus with 'Christian' blogs. Bloggers are linking to entries about a group called Christian Exodus. They do so because the group has the word 'Christian' in its name and the leader quotes the Bible a lot. Actually, Christian Exodus is an arm of the neo-Confederate movement. Its leader is the former head of the Texas League of the South, a segregationist and secessionist group. His plan to relocate 'Christians' to S.C. and secede from the Union is likely just another gambit to get attention for the movement. Two bloggers who 'get it' are Natalie Davis and myself. But, people within the largely Right Wing Christian blogger network haven't a clue. They are too busy trading the link back and forth to do the minimal research required for insight. This is the kind of inanity that leaves me exasperated with bloggers.

Interesting post and i will respond but it's the weekend and my breakfast is waiting, so until Monday...

Thanks for the link though.

When organization appears in the "blogosphere," I'm gone. I enjoy the anarchy and the unevenness of style and ability. We are not the mainstream media. Just barnacles under its ship. So what?

As to the stupid fights, they're easy to ignore. Or you can dive in. Your choice.

I see us as a billion ants, all of us fairly certain about what we are accomplishing alone, but grossly unaware of the progress of the aggregate, which is unknowable but in hindsight.

I came to blogging from writing, but that doesn't mean I'm a good blogger. I consider myself a bad one by your standards, and my numbers bear this out. My site meter is extremely low, and this is true about all my blogs. It bothers me sometimes. Then I think: Hey! Somebody is reading you right now, somewhere in the world. And it makes me feel great.

Maybe I should grow my blogroll, but you know what? Blogrolls are bullshit. I don't time to read everybody's blog. I want readers who aren't bloggers. I don't do this for ego strokes. I do it because I'm a lifelong compulsive writer and the blog gives me somewhere to put it all.

I'm happy for the people like you, Diva, who have found a measure of success in blogging, and I believe every endeavor needs its standand bearers. It's good to be slapped around for grammer, good to be ripped for shoddy research. Everybody needs that.

But there is something in your tone that sometimes makes me what to give up and never try again. It's not you; it's me. It's guilt because I know my posts don't meet the standard. Nothing I've posted is eligible for the mainstream press, but that's because the MSP is neutered by the requirement of presenting fact without opinion, unless otherwise stated. We all know that opinion and bias sneaks through. The left gets its news from NPR and the right from Fox, or so they say. Maybe. BUT!

What you rarely find in the MSP is blog-quality writing: opinionated, brash, unfettered by fact, ideology-driven crapulence that provokes us and makes us type back.

TYPE BACK! That's what blogging is about, in part. I'm not in favor of turning bloggers into journalists anymore than I'm a fan of turning barbers into dentists. Let us be different. Let the rules reveal themselves.

A billion ants can do a great deal (of damage, which is a byproduct of a bad metaphor, but not reflective of the way it is).

Curt

Oh, about you and Natalie Davis "getting it," I'm sure you are, but would you mind not broadcasting it all over? Because I'm not getting any.

Case in point: Curt is one of the better writers in the blogosphere and his readership numbers are low. That certainly speaks volumes as to the ambivalence of so-called blogging standards.

I want readers who aren't bloggers. I don't do this for ego strokes. I do it because I'm a lifelong compulsive writer and the blog gives me somewhere to put it all.

Fantastic comment CW and one I can relate to. I enjoy ego strokes myself, but if I am happy with something I've written and do not receive a single comment, I am still happy with it.

Don't know much about the great world of blogging, but do believe one of the most attractive aspects of it is the great variety, different viewpoints and unique styles. If everyone wrote their blogs to resemble the strict guidelines of traditional journalism, blogging would disappear rather quickly. I enjoy the creative blogs (even the long ones, which were eventually shreaded in here), the dumb blogs, the satirical blogs and the critical blogs.

Any one blogger who takes it upon his/her self to overhaul and refine all bloggers to specific standards is taking blogging way too seriously. There's no rules anymore than there are rules in a creative writing class. To provide positive encouragement and to applaud the stuff we like is not a sign of weakness or low standards. It's just a sign that we enjoy what is essentially a creative outlet.

To demean and insult with a rare (if not creepy) combination of talent and hate and then to rationalize it all into a neat little package of "Fighting for the high standards of Blogging!" is just a huge load of steaming bullshit.

We all have to deal with the everyday reality of bullshit in our regular lives, but at least we are usually getting paid for the bullshit reality. Once people start getting paid for their blogs, maybe then we can apply some supposed "high standard" to this young forum. But that's not going to happen. So each of us create and contribute in our own way - sometimes good, sometimes not so good.

It's a community, and like most communities, it's a patchwork quilt. Accept it and embrace it, rather than obsessively attempt to convince everyone why your view is the only view. To utilize talent to demean and alienate others only reveals a spirit with very few talents.

Blogging should be fun, and for everyone.

This is a good example of how we don't always have to agree or disagree.

Chris Kent, who usually kisses MacDiva ass, called her out on this ridiculously insecure notion that "new bloggers suck."

No one has to agree on everything or disagree on everything. You're not actually friends or enemies, people.

If you have an opinion, shoot it out. Don't take positions based upon your peresonal feelings about people or hold back from disagreeing from people whose writing or views you generally respect.

That is all.

Oh, Chris Kent and I mix it up fairly often, Bob. He can be very naive and likes Texas. Ugh.

But, Chris Kent is wrong for other reasons this time.

I am not the only one talking about blogging standards. The topic has been discussed by many a blogger whose weblog does not totally consist of hijacked news stories or pictures of his guns. Serious bloggers such as the CalPundit and Josh Marshall consider the topic since their credibility turns on bloggers having some credibility. Some newspaper writers and the journalism reviews have looked into it. (The Pew study is the most authoritative so far. That is why I cited it.) I am being given (dis)credit I deserve only incrementally.

Chris Kent does not get out enough. I have been looking at blogs with a critical eye since 2002. In that time, I've viewed, at least briefly, thousands. My accessment is based on evidence, not just whims. I doubt that anyone, other than researchers, has read the literature, and looked at the evidence, more than I have. He, on the other hand, is a newbie with limited exposure.

Chris Kent is mistaken that creative writing does not have standards and is misapplying that mistake to blogs. Basic standards apply to everything, even using the toilet. Asking that bloggers verify that what they are posting says what they think it says is not burdensome. If you have time to post that article (hopefully without violating copyright), you have time to acutally read it.

Christ Kent said:

To demean and insult with a rare (if not creepy) combination of talent and hate and then to rationalize it all into a neat little package of "Fighting for the high standards of Blogging!" is just a huge load of steaming bullshit.

Translation: This is my shiny new toy I like to play with. So, don't you dare point out that it is a flimsy piece of plastic and I forgot the batteries. I like it, so it is good. Meany.

Newbie rancor, indeed.

I've got a response up here.

Simon says that his version of the New Weblog Showcase is not a contest. He also says take one giant step. (Giggling.)

Mac Diva: I'm entirely sure I understand the "he also says take one giant step" comment means...I must be a stupid blogger.

However you are right, the Showcase is not a contest. It is exactly what it says, a Showcase. I'm looking forward to your reply.

Simon Says is so-o-o common a children's game, I don't know how anyone could misinterpret the play on words. Anyone using the name Simon should have heard it many a time by now. [personal attack deleted]

Y'know, this is the same critique used in all artistic forms that give the "power to the people" so to speak. Apple, when it created the Macintosh, gave people the ability to use "fonts" (typefaces, really. Fonts are actually collections of letters), and print them out almost engraving quality with a format called Postscript. What did this do? It put the incredible power of typographic style (and typefaces are incredibly powerful...they dictate to us HOW we read language) into the hands of a millions of typographically uneducated morons who knew nothing about typographic standards and who published a untold forests worth of crap. But, it also created an incredible typographic revolution, and exploded the publishing industry. It also (after people got over the idea of the electronic book) revitalized the idea of bookmaking in general. It did this BECAUSE of all the crap. There a dozens of other examples in this vein. Music creation software (ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.) have also done the same thing: Put power into the hands of no-nothings, and diliuted the artistic gene pool, so to speak. But, have also opened up new doors for expression that skilled persons can use with aplomb.

So,in a way blogging is very good for the journalistic medium, even if right now it's filled with a bunch of
self-serving egocentric crap (like my blog).

And just so you know, I'm a professional conservatory-educated composer (with long years of typographic education as well) so before you go off on my blog, your garage band better be really friggin' good or I'm gonna rip you a new one!

That was a joke, of course.

Cheers

I don't disagree with most of what you have said about the Macintosh, Neil. However, that is quite a different subject. Blogs are not really using new technology.

[reposting of edited comments deleted]

Well, I think blogging is "new" in that it is a very fresh medium for the written word. Blogging has given journalism to the "people" like the Mac gave creative freedom with typography to the people. The new technologies in blogging are blog softwares/interfaces and the internet itself, of course

My point is that, of course you are right to want professionalism, but, professionals always lament when the philistines crash the party. Every other field has had to deal with this, now its the writers' turn. I've complained aplenty about how ProTools made every half-assed guitar player think they were a great composer with a real shot at getting a record produced. Unfortunately for good taste, some of them did, and we're all paying for it, as individual listeners, and as a culture.

I believe that good craftsmanship will, in the end, be rewarded. But I also believe making a contribution to the art is worthwhile, no matter what the reward.

Cheers.

We're on the same wavelength in regard to the Mac. I re-read Steven Levy's Insanely Great: The Life and Times of Macintosh, the Computer That Changed Everything, every couple years. He really should do a sequel.