22 comments

• 

  Meg

  10 months ago

  Perfectly put. I couldn't agree more. The "democratization of the Web" doesn't mean you are bound to read every blog and opinion out there and take it as gospel, any more than I am required to watch Fox News.
  
  You use your judgment, you choose what you believe. Reading blogs is no different than reading OpEd anywhere.
  
  I think she wants to be honored somehow as someone who got a job in an industry, rather than someone who presents their opinion without a byline and a photo in a newspaper. But there are tons of idiot hacks working in mainstream journalism, too.:)
  
  It's only an honour if you have honour.
  reply
• 

  rob tyrie

  10 months ago

  Blatch's blog is www.theglobeandmail.com - ironic. Great Response Matt - enjoy her argument coming back, because we know that there will be one :) Now that's what I call a true conversation. You rock!
  reply
• 

  AGORACOM

  10 months ago

  Blatchford stated:
  
  "The thing that I know, as all the editors I have had also know, is what I didn't get to confide or write or commit to paper, because someone else had the good sense to put on the brakes."
  
  It is unfortunate that her "brakes" didn't get to her before this post. History will judge this as one of her worst pieces ever.
  
  George
  reply
• 

  dbarefoot

  10 months ago

  These pieces are the mainstream media's equivalent of link bait, eh? Summer has the visitor count down a bit to theglobeandmail.com? Write a piece that all the bloggers will link to--that ought to help.
  reply
• 

  seemsArtless

  10 months ago

  You captured my thoughts exactly with "She is a blogger without a blog", although I might add that it seems more like she is a blogger in denial.
  
  Hopefully she'll realize that people aren't interested or in awe of monologues anymore--often I have something to add to stories that interest me, and I'm interested in seeing how other people react to the story as well.
  reply
• 

  thornley

  10 months ago

  For years, journalists had it all their own way. All we, the intelligent populace could do, was read/watch/listen and howl at the moon. Blatchford is one of the more provocative, readable journalists around. But here she betrays the conceit and arrogance of her traditional mindset. Sad.
  reply
• 

  leigh

  10 months ago

  On a related note, I"m pretty sad about the whole disappearance of typesetting.
  reply
• 

  Daniel Gibbons

  10 months ago

  In any of these "now vs. the Golden Age" debates it's always interesting to dissect the reality behind the nostalgia. The prevailing wisdom among Blatchford's set seems to be that the fragmentation of news ultimately means we know less, particularly about things that are actually important, but I just don't buy that.
  
  For example, the average teenager has ALWAYS known or cared very little about domestic politics, world affairs, economics, and so on. The difference now is that this information, though it may be surrounded by a lot of mindless drivel about gossip and celebrities, is actually accessible.
  
  Blogs give a voice to idiots, but their proliferation means that it's virtually impossible for any piece of fact-based news to escape being reported upon.
  
  I suspect the reality of the "curmudgeon" ("curmudgeoness"?) persona has more to do with the radical shift in the economics of producing and monetizing content. That is to say, it has more to do with initiative and focus than being within the safe walls of the establishment.
  reply
• 

  tamera kremer

  10 months ago

  Silly me, I thought the "Letters to the Editor" section was the peons trying to have a conversation/ dialogue with the ivory tower before comments on blogs came into play.
  reply
• 

  Roll

  10 months ago

  I don't understand what kind of "born blogger" you think Blatchford should be -- someone who comments on the next 2.0 IPO or whether FriendFeed is better than Twitter? Respectfully, those are the only subjects I see discussed here, and in your column.
  
  A columnist dealing in human experiences and emotions is not going to get very far playing to that audience. They wouldn't understand it anyway.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  10 months ago

  If those are the only subjects you see discussed, Roll (or should that be Troll?), then you obviously haven't read very much of this blog. As for appealing to that audience, why would Christie have to do that? There are plenty of blogs for plenty of different audiences.
  reply
• 

  Roll

  10 months ago

  Why don't you write a post outlining what her potential market would be? I'm sure it would be useful for everyone.
  reply
• 

  Eden Spodek

  10 months ago

  The reason I read Christie Blatchford's column in the first place is because she writes so personalized and I as though she's speaking directly to me. It's a shame she has such disregard for blogging. At last glance, her article had 98 comments. Not too shabby although I suspect they'd be more meaningful if they were part of a community she cultivated on her own blog.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  10 months ago

  That's part of what I think Christie is missing by being so dismissive of blogging, Eden -- if she gave it a try, I think she could really develop a great community around her writing.
  reply
• 

  startupcfo

  10 months ago

  I read her piece with my mouth aghast in horror. What a train wreck of a piece. She really showed herself to be a bit of a dinosaur. And for someone with apparently only a finite # of words which she does not want to waste on blogging, she can be verbose.
  reply
• 

  Michael Camilleri

  10 months ago

  I think you mischaracterise her argument slightly, Matt. The first thread of which is not an attack on the democratisation of journalism (that comes later) but instead a theory of why the act of blogging is bad for journalists:
  
  

  
  Most important, Michael Farber is right. We all have a limited number of things to say, informed opinions, funny lines, quirky observations. We have only so many words in us. Do we really want to spend them on something as ephemeral as a blog?
  

  
  Her point is that blogs, in encouraging and rewarding a near-constant stream of new material, set up a situation where it is all but impossible to consistently ensure quality journalism. Consistently good journalism requires time. Time to do the research, time to talk to the people involved and, most importantly of all, time to write. Blogging, with its emphasis on post now, ask questions later, all but precludes this. Moreover, the increasing pressure newspapers put on their reporters to churn out content is turning them from journalists into bloggers and from producers of quality writing to producers of poorly written drivel.
  
  While I think you do correctly identify the second strand of her argument (the democratisation of journalism is bad), with all due respect, I think your counter-argument is a little weak. First, if you're looking for someone let me be the person to say that journalism is not supposed to be a conversation. Just because a technology has come along and created a related field doesn't mean the related fields are equivalent. Journalists may now be bloggers but that doesn't mean that bloggers are journalists.
  
  Second, that we now have the ability to have a two-way dialogue is great and I'm all for celebrating that but let's call a spade a spade. A two-way dialogue? That's a conversation. It's people putting forth different points of view and modifying their position (or not) based on what the other person says. Journalism is the act of investigating a story (often one that's topical), doing the research, and writing it up in a way that informs the reader. Does that make journalism and the Internet mutually exclusive? No, of course not. What it means is that you can't just call any form of writing about current events journalism.
  reply
• 

  Jon Arnold

  10 months ago

  Hi Mathew - we don't speak much, but I do follow your blog. Loved the post, and was feeling the same thing when reading the Globe this morning. The old-school writer in me vehemently sides with Christie, and the anybody-can-do-this-but-it's-harder-than-you-think blogger in me sides with you. It's messy, but I love the conversation - that's how you really know you're reaching your readers.
  
  On that note, I just wanted to add one thing. What I love about the online version of papers like the Globe is the ability for readers to comment on a specific article. That's the messy part of all this - it's both journalism and blogging mashed up together, and I think it's the best part of the online edition. I don't ever see people talking about this, and whenever I cite something from the Globe in my blog, I almost always talk about the comments as they provide a real barometer of the article's value that you just can't get in the print edition.
  reply
• 

  bill finerman

  10 months ago

  blatchford's a fine writer and a provocative thinker. if she challenges convention, so be it & more power to her
  reply
• 

  Robert

  10 months ago

  I quite agree with you Mathew. She write in a very personal fashion. But I am very fickle when it comes to her articles I have loved some of them and think others are absolutely dribble.
  reply
• 

  Blaise Alleyne

  10 months ago

  "Loren Feldman told me that he agrees with Christie, and that he likes to read what I write, and doesn’t care about the comments. That’s very flattering..."
  
  I don't always read the comments either. But sometimes I do, when I disagree or when I want to dig deeper into a story.
  
  But, more importantly, *you* read your comments. Even if the majority of readers don't participate in the comments thread, the fact that you as the writer engage in discussion benefits your future posts! Even the readers who never read the comments will benefit from them as they help you fine tune your points and alert you to new stories and perspectives.
  reply
• 

  300baud

  10 months ago

  I don't know if journalism is in decline or if I am just getting more perceptive. It would be giving myself way too much credit to assume it is entirely the latter. I don't think it's fair to blame blogging. There is simply no commercial application for good journalism. Journalism is about educating your audience, which is completely contrary to how commercial media thrives. The larger the media company, the more journalism is likely to conflict with its best interest. If journalism is going to survive, it is going to have to somehow slip its commercial chains. Blogging is one way it could do that.
  
  I understand that in the past, we took pains to avoid the sorts of conflicts that are occurring today. We didn't allow such consolidated ownership of media, media outlets wanted to be seen to be operating their news departments at arms length, etc. Why did all that change?
  reply
• 

  JoAnne

  9 months ago

  TWe get papers at the office, so the only time I buy the Globe is when Christie B,. writes about her dog. THAT'S the book I'd like to see.
  reply