In high school media class I was taught to write news articles using the inverted pyramid, the lede, and the five W's and an H. Tease all facts out of the event, record facts coherently into template, spell-check, fact-check, print, and read. Ta-da! Journalism 101.
Events covered could be boring or exciting, even historic, but that's immaterial to how they should be uniformly reported. When I read news I want information only: strings of facts that are credible, well referenced, and easy to assimilate. I want my news as dry, coarse, and joyless as eating Weetabix from the box.
What I don't want is what the reporter thinks of the facts he or she is reporting while he or she is reporting them. When I want an opinion, I'll ask or look for it in more relevant sections of the paper (features, op-ed, the arts pages, reviews, the magazine, the crossword, the Jumble, or the funnies).
Bringing sexy back isn't the goal in news articles, and the writer's thoughts, commentary, speculation, noodlings, or gossip is out of context and wholly inappropriate. Besides, when I want an uneasy mixture of all of those things at once I just read various and sundry film blogs.
At their worst (film/fan) blogs ultimately place more importance on a blogger's personality than on the subject or the information. Facts are eclipsed or rendered mute. Bloggers hold them captive. Bloggers also hold the reader captive – in a stalled elevator during the blackout, or sharing your armrest and shoulder on the red-eye transatlantic flight. No quarter. It's a Trojan Horse. You want facts, but instead they spring out and beat you silly with nabobism.
Metaphorically the worst bloggers are radio DJs that talk over the musical intros of all your favorite songs right up until the singing starts. Most of the chatter is talking just for the sake of talking. I hate them. Morrissey had it right when he sang his chorus of "Hang the DJ!" on Panic.
Shut up and play music. You're not on television. You're not funny. Everything you say isn't amazing by virtue of your ability to draw breath. No one cares outside of “song title, band name," and in this Clearchannel day and age you aren't even spinning platters or loading CDs - you're pushing buttons on computer-generated song lists. You're fungible. You work in a field that's on the iPodded and XM'd cusp of extinction. You're not famous and you probably have a face for radio, so don't take it out on your hostages by blabbing whilst dreaming that you're Howard Stern or Wolfman Jack.
Article comments
1 - Tiffany Leigh
I keep getting reminded that this applies to far more than film or music blogs. [BoingBoing, I'm looking snarkily in your general direction].
You could make cases for "anyone with an Internet connection and a brain."
Make that "anyone with an Internet connection" only.
2 - Jon
You make some valid points. All I can say is that when it comes to reviews, what I look for is something unique, just as with anything else. Hopefully that's what I bring to the table, but it's hard for me to always know. I haven't taken any writing classes. I have no formal training. I don't always know what works and what doesn't, so I just write what I feel and hope for the best.
3 - Chris Evans
When I visit blogs the writer's voice and commentary is why I visit. For blogs, what makes them better than reading regular news, is how personal they are as opposed to the professionalism of accredited news sources.
4 - Matthew Milam
"It's believing in your own bullshit."
That's not really a bad thing -- just ask New York of "I Love New York". She's making money while the rest of us claw at each about spelling errors and personality.
Something to think about.
5 - Tiffany Leigh
Re: Money and investing in your own BS
That's the difference I try to point out in the post -- motives for throwing one's Voice differ from person to person. Mileage varies. People may read for sizzle and not steak, depending on the sources and one's interests.
Some reasons people blog: to print out their own currencies, clock in 15 minutes, curry favor, to be remembered, or reviled, or because no one ever asked you to dance in high school.
Seeing an niche and filling it isn't a bad thing. None of the above rationales are bad, good, or indifferent. They are motivations and choices that each person makes. They are first and most lasting impressions of themselves in the world. And bloggers in question make the beds in which they lie. Reap, meet sow.
Just because I like spelling, and grammar, and I try to write each and every time out the way that I try to live (with passion, opinion, curiosity, coherence, and sometimes enteretainment), doesn't mean I'm readable at all. Nor does it mean I'd like to impose my style universally on the masses.
I guess it's similar to the arguments in art about what's commercial and what's "high art." Maybe it's the difference between being Michael Bay and being Marty Scorsese. Or John Grisham and Philip Roth. Pick an artform, this gulf applies.
6 - Matthew Milam
"Seeing an niche and filling it isn't a bad thing. None of the above rationales are bad, good, or indifferent. They are motivations and choices that each person makes. They are first and most lasting impressions of themselves in the world. And bloggers in question make the beds in which they lie. Reap, meet sow."
I think the whole context of your article was way too angry to be objective to me. For one, the freedom of the internet is to be yourself. That means that the conventional traits of the classic way to do journalism aren't going to apply. You are going to see snarky commentary and you are going to see fanboy excitement. You are going to see, in theory, real expression.
That's just in theory.
When you go on a date, the facts and figures and connections to who the person is mean nothing if the person you are out with is a total bore.
To say that Film Critics and Music Critics don't matter means that -- for the most part, the people that do them are wasting their time and should close their blogging accounts because they'll never get the traffic or get the massive following of their opinions.
This reality is true of anything -- including writing.
I give my commentary on what I see because I feel that I should be able to do that. I'm not being paid to do this and I believe in freedom of expression over the "please the masses" factor. Granted I would love to be able to get the hits and the popularity, but I already do too much of that in my real life when I think about it.
I wanna relax, grab a pop, write a review, maybe attempt to write a story, and go to bed and think nothing more of it.
When you turn writing as a means to impress people, the fun goes straight out the window and now you are trying to compete with the best because you wanna be able to see down the tall tower folks create for you and go -- I'm not like those folks down there anymore.
Wow, this is way more than I usually type in a comment box.
7 - Kaonashi
I was trained as a journalist too, for I once worked on my university newspaper. I know the importance of the five W's and one H, to double check the facts and make sure the quotes are accurate, etc. I'm not a grammar nazi, but I'm sure a stickler for spelling. And I think that those elements are important in film and music blogs as well.
At the same time however, the whole point of blogs is that most don't offer cut and dry news articles. If I wanted pure news, I'd read CNN or MSNBC. What's great about blogs is that the author offers his or her opinion to the news piece. What's the point of comments if the blogger himself/herself doesn't comment on the article? Blogs are supposed to be more releaxed and personal. They're not the Associated Press.
8 - Tiffany Leigh
Re: Blogger's commentary -- I agree that the opinion is what differentiates blogging from standard news reporting. But it's like the cult of Howard Stern: he pioneered the idea of a "morning radio show" by being edgy, funny, off-the-wall, and not playing much music.
Now most radio stations not only follow this format, but most of the other morning shows are absolutely anti-funny. Just because someone blogs, just because someone has the tools at hand to post their opinions doesn't automatically make them interesting, compelling, coherent, what have you.
In my specific case of film blogging, there's very few people posting anything that carries weight -- their facts they gank from other sources, and their opinions are mostly vanilla or inconsistent. Foisting one's opinion and thinking one cares before they get a chance to know you is like a blind date. A bad one.
9 - Tiffany Leigh
"I think the whole context of your article was way too angry to be objective to me."
With this statement you are defining exactly what I'm talking about: what differentiates traditional news from an op-ed, feature, and yes, a blog entry; they are subjective, they are sometimes angry (just as they can be funny, snarky, inane).
The freedom of the internet is to be yourself. That means that the conventional traits of the classic way to do journalism aren't going to apply.
I agree that the internet is less formal. But I disagree that some of the "classic ways" of journalism that get jettisoned should be spelling, compelling writing, and the ability to formulate a solid opinion.
You are going to see, in theory, real expression.
I wish that "real expression" didn't always have to mean "first draft dashed off during a lunch break with the speed of a grocery list on the back of a napkin." That's my English major talking.
When you go on a date, the facts and figures and connections to who the person is mean nothing if the person you are out with is a total bore.
And I feel that most reading most bloggers are like going on blind dates. Or dates with people that talk with their mouth full. Or dates with people that are wholly inappropriate at the dinner table. Or dates that are drunk when they show up at your door. You fear for "boredom." But too much of a good snark can be a bad thing too.
To say that Film Critics and Music Critics don't matter--
I never did say that Film & Music Critics don't matter. [Full disclosure: my original title for this post (edited for content here at BC) was "Why do blogs suck?" It was more inclusive.]
I wish that those who had this freedom to express themselves -- some of them, lots of them -- tried harder, strove for more than mediocrity, took it more seriously (I don't mean "acted"), and challenged themselves. It's not a responsibility to log on and dash off some first draft then post it. But if you want to be more than the subject of your site, you have a responsibility to strive for something interesting, don't you?
Not all blogs are content-supported. Not everyone tunes in for writing excellence, I understand. But I know that if someone blogs and isn't very compelling a personality or writer, isn't someone with a strong voice, then they are lost in the endless sea of bloggers.
They'll never get the traffic or get the massive following of their opinions.
That's a very specific goal. I'd say it's not necessarily everyone's. I also hope it's not the number one motivation for a person to express themselves online unless they are out to be "famous" (in a strange Internet way, or for their 15 minutes) or to make money.
I'd be wary of a blogger (non-content supported) who started a blog with the explicit goal of fame and fortune. If you are in and of yourself interesting, all that happens after.
10 - Michael Karesh
I'm confused. You seem to be saying that most blogs don't have a voice because they contain too much opinion and not enough fact, but then at the very in you toss in the need for "personality."
I agree with other commenters here that the whole point of a blog ought to be to present one's personal take on the subject. Grounded in facts, sure, but not straight facts.
Perhaps you're really writing against opinion for its own sake--"I have no clue what I'm writing about, but I certainly have an opinion on it!"
I'd offer that the best blogs contain educated, reasoned opinions.