August 30, 2004
Blogging the Conventions: A Look at The State of The Art
On a less partisan note: what we do, especially what those actually at the conventions do — is it promising and is it worth it? Matt Welch has defended political campaign coverage blogging well: “‘Blogger’ may be one of the English-language’s most unfortunate words — my Boston friends were already refusing to pronounce the thing before the [Democratic] convention even started… — but there’s something to be said for spitting out 15,000 words in real-time while the Journalism School professors fret and The New Yorker uses a small army to pinch off two Talk of the Town snippets. By the time the circus moves to New York, we may even get the hang of it. “
Matthew, do you know if there are any organizations tracking or polling for blogging effects on the electorate? It would seem to me, that the potential for blogging to advertisers, parties, canidates, special interest groups, etc. should be measured to determine if blogging conventions or even blogging of political news and opinion, makes any difference at all in the minds of voters.
If I didn’t have a house to finish building, I know what start up company I would have initiated this year.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 30, 2004 10:13 AMDavid —
Not sure, I’ll give it a look but it certainly is a likely place for new opportunity. My own idea was “product placement blogging”, like what they do in the movies. (Scroll far down on www.hoganzeroes.blogspot.com)
Posted by: matthew hogan at August 30, 2004 11:28 AMThe value of blogging, I think, is that it combines the two strengths of the internet- text and hypertext, to allow both greater personal expression and faster relaying of information that might otherwise be hidden from public awareness.
That said, it is also a medium vulnerable to rumor and talking points. It allows people to fire off rhetorical and factual shots before they know the quality of the ammunition they’re firing. There’s something to be said for having a newscast or newspaper that must be prepared, as opposed to a blog which can be knocked off on a whim. It democratizes the media, but it also means that there’s nothing between you and the author but your own ability to factcheck and critically sort through the information.
Skepticism and tentativeness of conclusion are virtues in the the age of the Blog. That’s why I like this one- no echo chamber. As frustrating as some view points might be, We all can check and balance each other, making sure that all are encouraged to build on a foundation of good facts and sound conclusions.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2004 12:32 PMQuite right, Stephen. Text especially is a commodity TV and radio can’t compete with. You hear commentary on political news on TV and it is immediately lost (unless you have photographic auditory memory or have stengraphic skills). Whereas the Internet provides direct quote ability which is absolutely necessary for credibility.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 30, 2004 04:18 PMThat is a great idea Matthew. Can I buy stock on the ground floor? :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 10:49 AM
