Andy Chase

Saw this on Metafilter today. Alex Beam from the Boston Globe has written a nasty column about Bloggers and, by extension, the people who read them. (Why are you reading this? I'm not a real writer because I do this for free. Turn off your computer and buy a copy of the Boston Globe, you a-hole.)



I'm going to bring myself down to Mr. Beam's level for a moment: For somebody whose insights are so clearly superior to those of the rest of us, by virtue of being printed on dead trees under an "Old Media" masthead, he certainly has a great big, gnarled, pointy stick up his ass about the fact that people write their own op-ed pieces about stuff and post it on the web for free. For Free! The nerve of some people, trying to cut in on real opinion writers' territory like that.



What puzzles me is the argument he makes, which is that all blogs are crap... if this is the case, what is he so wound up about?



I certainly don't fancy myself any sort of cutting edge neo-journalist-blogger, nor do I put other 'mainstream' blogs on a pedestal. I would hazard a guess that most other people with blogs don't have any illusions about their little hobby sites being The New Wave of Journalism, either.



That being said, I think that many of the comments found on interactive blogs like Metafilter and (if I may be so bold as to call it an interactive blog) Slashdot are often much more insightful and/or informed than "Real" journalists' columns. As an oversimplified example, what does Steve Harvey do once a week in "Only In L.A." that contributors to Portal of Evil don't do for free every day? (Granted, most of the things found on Portal Of Evil aren't fit for mainstream print publication, but you get the idea.)



I think this is the real issue at the root of such biting commentary from folks like Alex Beam and John Dvorak, but they would no sooner admit that than they would admit that some blogs are well-written and entertaining to boot.