What was David Bullard thinking?

[chiskop]

1. Nobody should take David Bullard seriously.
2. He criticised poorly written blogs - what's the problem?

 

[Ozymandias]

1. Nobody should take David Bullard seriously.
2. He criticised poorly written blogs - what's the problem?

There is no problem at all. It's all part of the spice of life. He can question the quality of poorly written blogs but I would like to question the quality of this particular article. He can easily hide behind the "don't take me seriously" or "I personally wouldn't have bothered to react in this way" stance but that merely cancels any debate.

 

[Debbie]

Journalists like Bullard would like us to believe that they have the monopoly on opinion. I find the readers letters section of many local newspapers far more interesting than the columnists and editorials.

My thoughts exactly. One of the features of the blogosphere is that it acts as part of the public sphere. People can freely put out and discuss opinions, and see what's topical at the moment. Like-minded people can network and refine their opinions.

A lot of what's out there in blogs is indeed crap, just like much of what the formal media puts out is crap. Go into a Pick 'n Pay and look at the magazine rack. 85% of the publications are crap, fulled with throw-away opinions and presentations of the world. Sit through an entire day's programming on SABC, and you'll see the same thing. As for newspapers, their advertisers have a hand in defining what makes 'the news'.

So I agree that much of the stuff on blogs is crap, but so is much of the stuff in the formal media.

In 2006 Richard Frank (of Tectonic- http://www.tectonic.co.za/ ) made a blog post about how his business was being affected by Telkom's slow pace in installing an ADSL line. In his post he mused about taking out a full page newspaper advert voicing frustration with Telkom's service and the state of telecoms in the country. He got such a response, that within 48 hours of calling for pledges he had reached his targeted R50 000 to pay for the advert. Hundreds of individuals - strangers - donated between R100 and R1000 to the cause. When the advert ran the telecoms issues it addressed received millions of rands of free publicity. The advert sparked a debate on television news. The chairperson of the regulator (ICASA), and a representative from the Department of Communications were pressured into a 30 minute television debate on telecoms issues because of the advert. The advert and it's opinions were discussed on talk radio stations. Many newspapers reported on the advert, with some even carrying the text for free. A consumer action group resulted out of Richard's post, and more actions are planned for the future. Oh, and Richard's line was installed the day after the advert ran.

I wonder when last Mr Bullard's sparked a democracy-promoting group, or resulted in government officials being called to account on national television?

 

[antowan]

Something for David Bullard: http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/asking-the-crowd-to-spread-the-news/

From somebody a little bigger...

 

[orin76]

Why are so many people seeing David Bullard's editorial as an attack on blogging? It seems to me he was merely pointing out that most blogs are cr@p (which is pretty much fact) and that the anonymity enjoyed by bloggers allows them to print irresponsible nonsense that would get any respectable journalist in serious trouble. I don't see why some people here seem so offended.
If you have a blog and it generates traffic to your site, congratulations. You may have some talent. If not then, like me you may have no storytelling ability whatsoever. So what!