This thread is part of a larger topic, raised here.

A press story raises a point about electronic media that is much more important, I think, than the transitory and partisan example it gives. I hope we can discussion on the former, without getting sidetracked onto the later.

guest editorial by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, in today's Wall Street Journal; excerpted:
With accredited bloggers at both conventions, this can fairly be call the first presidential election to be blogged. And that might just matter – because of big-media vices.
. . .The election coverage from Big Media has been unusually partisan this time around. As Newsweek's Even Thomas famously remarked: "Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. … that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."
. . .But the big media advantage doesn't seem to have turned out to be as big as some thought. It's been apparent for quite a while that Mr. Kerry's Vietnam record would be a centerpiece of his campaign, and it's also been apparent that he has stretched the truth more than a little. And the Kerry campaign eventually admitted that, but only after prodding from the media.
. . .Not from the newspapers and TV networks – which studiously ignored the story for nearly two weeks – but from blogs and talk radio. Bloggers researched the story on Google, on Factiva and Lexis, and in libraries. Talk-radio hosts, including some who are bloggers themselves, retailed the findings to the wider world. Eventually the Kerry campaign was forced to respond, which then forced the New Your Times and the LA times, grudgingly, to admit that the story existed and to start their own coverage.
. . .[In] the media environment of 1972, the refusal to carry the story of a few big outlets chummy with the campaign would have been enough to keep things quiet. That didn't work, as the new media were enough to neutralize the media advantage that Kerry's strategy was built around.

I'm not here to argue about Kerry, or his military record, or media bias. Rather, I'd like to the subject here is how communitation by blog has changed, and will change, our politics.

Rather, I'd like to the subject here is how communitation by blog has changed, and will change, our politics.

Or, how about how blogs have or will change our communication worldwide? I don't have much knowledge about the political aspects, though I do worry about all the lies that could be posted.

However, more generally, I just read an article about how teenagers (at least in America) are flocking to the Internet and using Blogs as diaries. One concern of course was, being young and naive, that they were saying waaay too much and putting themselves in jeopardy perhaps. Still, I do remember when I was a teenager how many of us kept diaries. I still have mine in my attic (my kids found them and read them...how embarrassing!). Now, teens are blogging instead.

Blogs have really been in the news here in the states recently because of Dan Rather's mistake on 60 Minutes. As I have posted elsewhere, there was an excellent analytical piece (not often found in our local paper!) on the politics of blogs...and a fairly new coinage: blogosphere. How would you define "blogosphere?" Their definition was rather convoluted, to say the least.

What seems to worry some people is that blogs are fostering extremism and hatred. Now, I know that some blogs (such as arnie's, jheem's, and Bob's) are very informative. However, some of them are quite radical. Yet, they surely seem to be able to keep the media in check, which is a good thing.

What do you think?

Blogs are pretty much like people or papers: i.e., rather diverse. The same skills that one would hone while reading the paper or watching the media are applicable to blogs. Some wear the hearts on their sleeves. Others just need a cursory glance to determine which side of the fence to place them on politcally. I may be a little outside the general consensus in blogovia (another term for the blogosphere), but I don't see much difference between blogs and the editorial page in a news paper. At least the good ones. If you read more than one or two issues of the Washington Post or the Washington Times you'll have a fairly good idea of how to adjust the scale, read between the lines, etc. to come up with a simple story without or with very little editorial content. Then cross checking or a little investigative journalism. The thing about the 60 Minutes story was that there are a lot of people who make their living by the fairly close reading and inspection of texts online, and some of those just pointed out the inconsistencies in the forged documents.

Blogs are so much more than politics, though. At least the ones that I read with some regularity. I would say that about half of those are political and the rest are about other things -- quilting, music, poetry, cooking, and sometimes just a peek into another person's world.

I would love to see the blogs of some of our users here. Mine is http://www.justjosmidden.blogspot.com/

Blogs are so much more than politics, though.

Yes, I agree. Most of the blogs I read are linguistics oriented. Then come the film, poetics, and arts blogs. Philosophy and politics.

My blog.

(Sorry, jo, fat fingers. Try it now.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jheem,

your link isn't working, jheem.

There's not much in it yet, but for future reference, here is my blog.

~~~~ jerry

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jerry thomas,

Wow, I didn't know how many here had their own blogs. Are they easy to start? I would love to start one.

Jo, I agree that they go way beyond politics, though often the person's politics in intertwined. I surely saw some politics in yours.

Yes, personal politics do enter in. I'm passionate about politics, and it would be strange indeed for me not to have some in my blog. However, being of very very liberal persuasion, I tend to think of my politics as being more social activism.

Anyway, Blogspot was my place of choice to start a blog. You can go to www.blogspot.com and easily start a blog. I suppose there are other sites, some maybe even better. But I like this one for the ease of set up.

Jerry mentioned his blog on the chat today, and I looked at it. It is very nice indeed!

One question, how really do blogs differ from Web sites? In a sense, really aren't they Web sites...except people can post on them? Also, since there are places that give you free servers, what do those places (such as blogspot) get out of it? That is, how do they make money?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
That is, how do they make money?

---

Usually from the advertising banners.

Mine hasn't been maintained for a very long time now but you can get to it from the link in my sig. If I ever get time I'll add to it.

As for the difference between a blog and a web site it's just in the intent of the blogger. Blogs are more like a diary than anything else, albeit a diary you are careless enough to leave around for your mom to read.

albeit a diary you are careless enough to leave around for your mom to read.

I've always felt that those who kept a diary wished it to be read at some point if only by themselves or their literary heirs.

I've always felt that those who kept a diary wished it to be read at some point if only by themselves or their literary heirs

Don't count on it, jheem. Girls, for some reason, love to keep diaries. I did as a girl, and they are in our attic. I completely forgot about them...until my kids found them and read them. How embarrassing!

Believe me, they were hardly literary. I was a typical teenager who could only think about boys. I actually don't remember being as superficial as I was!

Quote "...I was a typical teenager who could only think about boys...."

How come I never met one of these? Or maybe what they were thinking about wasn't the same as what I was thinking about...

Richard,

Well, I imagine you weren't thinking about boys...

Would one of you please define "blog" for me? I understand that it's some kind of on-line diary, but I'm not really sure what it means. Help!

Asa the ignorant

Blog < weblog. It's a website, updated more often than not, where the content is organized in reverse chronological order, like an online diary. More info here.

Or maybe what they were thinking about wasn't the same as what I was thinking about...

You know me, Richard; I am a real literalist. If you mean sex you are right. I was in my early teens and wasn't thinking of sex. However, I was always talking about this "cute boy" or that "that really nice guy." I had hoped that I was more serious than that at that age, but I wasn't.

Quote "...I was in my early teens and wasn't thinking of sex..."

Therein lies the difference. In my experience, when they're in their early teens, most boys think of very little else.

The great tragedy is that few teenagers know that there is this huge difference in desire and priorities.

The boys that work it out are the ones who are most successful in their sexual quest since they can tell the right lies to the girls. The girls that work it out (usually rather more quickly than do the boys) can take advantage of the boys' high sex drive by gaining social and other advantages by telling different lies - usually promising sexual favours that they don't deliver.

Sadly, my realisation came rather too late for me to capitalise on it!

do men ever really grow out of the "thinking about sex all the time" stage?

do men ever really grow out of the "thinking about sex all the time" stage?

Sometime after death.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jheem:
Sometime after death.

---

Damn, I hope not.

Tinman

quote:

---

Originally posted by tinman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jheem:
Sometime after death.

---

Damn, I hope not.

Tinman

---

Honestly? I hope not, too! (forgive my poor grammar, I'm too busy thinking about men thinking about sex)

Quote "...do men ever really grow out of the "thinking about sex all the time" stage?..."

Well, now that I am older I sometimes stop thinking about sex to allow myself time to think about beer.