Sportswriter Mike Lupica, on Tim Russert's show, lamented the fact that you can't get to know ballplayers anymore. They're too afraid of being misquoted or thought ill of in an age of political correctness and gotcha journalism. Russert agreed, saying that it used to be you'd have a few drinks with a politician and they'd say "this is off the record" and you could get a sense of how they really felt about things.
I think this feeds the popularity of blogs, this fresh outlet for saying things that are offensive to some (such as religious truth claims). And size matters. Our large Columbus Dispatch doesn't want to offend, while the free upstart (called "The Other Paper") gives you a fresh honesty, or, more likely, an unvarnished opinion. The person most honest is the one writing in his journal for an audience of one, and/or (hopefully) when talking to God. Blogs are a step from that but fresher than newsprint. Akim, a recent arrival to blogdom, has interesting things to say:
Blogs are terrific in the way they allow a peek into the inner workings of people. Not a very deep one perhaps but better than none at all. Bloggers write half for themselves, half for others. So the propaganda-factor is watered down and double-edged. I know I bullshit a lot here, but less than I would bullshit if I had to write an article instead of a journal entry. Therefore, concerning the above, I found myself spying on religious blogs - perhaps I'll finally find some clues there, to the illusive and the unspoken...
Also, I'm getting this odd feeling that some blogs start out original in the best personal sense of the word and then get screwed up by the popularity itch - turning politico or educational to feed the swelling crowd. So the best way to spot out peculiar stuff is still the random poke - fishing out the odd fish. I wonder if I'll find other ways eventually.
No comments:
Post a Comment