After reading Anita Campbell's post and conducting further research, I have made an informed decision on Doug Mohney's journalistic ability and his level of writing well-informed opinion pieces.
Doug Mohney, the completely out-of-touch writer over at The Inquirer who claims bloggers are losers should get a mirror if he would like to see the real loser for 2003, or 2004 for that matter.
I say this knowing that my blog generates more business for me and more comments from current customers and potential customers than any other source. It's a method for me to freely share information with current clients or anyone else I desire to share it with, allowing them to be informed consumers. It also allows me to show my real estate knowledge and expertise, which has drawn media inquiries, providing me with publicity, or free advertising, as some call it. In any case, it's helpful to my business, my customers, potential customers and to journalists and other writers who need information to write a story in order to get paid. Surely Doug can understand such a conundrum.
Doug's reality is that blogs do hurt the value of columnists, who are clearly overpaid and overvalued, especially when anyone can become a columnist with a blog and attain income doing it. Some bloggers have even made book deals as a result of showing their writing skills and expertise on their blog. Various news publications and broadcast news outlets even have blogs to ensure a secure spot in the blogging world. Why pay columnists ungodly amounts of money when bloggers don't charge newspapers or other publications a dime? Fire your columnists, publishers. I'll give you information for free or at a discount compared to what you're paying your often out-of-touch, uninformed columnists.
This is clearly Doug's dillemna, but rather than being honest about the personal dillemna Doug faces, he has chosen to label all bloggers as losers, but bloggers are clearly not the true losers of 2003 or 2004, for that matter.
Article comments
1 - Tom Johnson
Not really on-topic, but stemming from it - why would Wil Wheaton get a three-book deal because of his blog? I don't see any particularly spectacular examples of writing there. I think he more got the deal because he's still a name of sorts, not because he's actually a talented writer (not that he's bad, just that he's run of the mill, like most of us.)
2 - John Mudd
His name probably has a great deal to do with his book deal, but without his blog, no one would have ever thought of him as a writer. It's possible that more people would read a column written by Will Wheaton than by Dave Mohney, though, because of Wheaton's popularity, even though Mohney's writing ability may, in fact, exceed Wheaton's.
3 - Doug Mohney
Dear Mudd--
1) It's Doug, not Dave.
2) So much for "informed research" and being out of touch.
3) Not to mention the other B'logger who went and echoed the wrong name.
4) So are you going to post a correction with the proper name, or just keep your spew as-is where is? Oooh, can't retract a REPEATED INACCURACY eh?
5) When did Blogs become as American as Apple pie? Silly human.
6) Letter to editor. Ever heard of it? "No, I'll post it on my Blog and it will magically B'heard!"
To borrow the English phrase... Twit.
4 - Mac Diva
I like the way you stand up for yourself, Doug. It reminds me of someone I know well . . . me. And, not everyone around here hates you. I'm adding the Inquirer to my source list for when I write about tech issues.
Tom, I met Wheaton and wrote a pretty sympathetic entry about him on my blog. He was just as smug as a hen who just layed an egg. He doesn't realize he is not a good writer. However, considering the troubles of many former child stars, the boy is doin' alright.
The publisher for Wheaton's first so-called book was one of the those 'publish on demand' setups, i.e., establish a certain number of pre-orders and we will publish that number of books. Perhaps that is what is going on with Blogger's three book deal.
5 - John Mudd
I'm glad you're so self-important, Dave, Doug, whatever your name is. After all, someone should think you're important, and while few, if any here probably do, they probably don't think you're quite as important as you think you are.
I won't waste my time changing your name, even though it is possible. I just don't think you're that important, or even deserving, considering the condescending tone of your post.
Don't take it personally, Dave. Or, do take it personally. Write a column about it. Although, if my opinion gets you that bent out of shape, perhaps you should consider the effects your opinion have before putting them in print.
Cheers.
6 - Mac Diva
Doug, if you think these people are being touchy, you should look at the Amazon reviews for books about blogs. They are often rancorous. What I feel is a phony sense of competition among bloggers may be the real downfall of the practice.
7 - John Mudd
This post has been updated for PageRank purposes.
Cheers.
8 - Doug Mohney
I'm so amused at the personal attacks that get read and processed by the same incestious circles of group think...
"I think Doug should lose his Job."
Would you say that to my face? My editor's face? Noope.
But on the Blog SoapBox, a long and winded rant with a couple of URLs makes you An Expert.
Gads. Just close the door to the closet of the fraternity already...
9 - John Mudd
Doug, you would be surprised. I have lobbied publishers and editors before to have incompetent reporters fired and re-assigned for what was simply bad reporting. I didn't feel that your column gave blogs or bloggers a fair shake and in this country I am free to voice, or type my displeasure of it. However, to prove my point to you and your editor, I'm willing to wager that if I were to write a column for your publication that I would get more readers and a better response. Here's your chance to prove yourself right or make me eat my own words. Please contact me or have your editor contact me if you are interested. By the way, I never called myself a blog expert. The media gave me that wonderfully gracious title.
Cheers.