Scott, I think that what Alan has in mind when he writes about 'blogging' is not what I have in mind. Isn't what Greenwald does 'blogging' or Walt or Clemons and so many others? I would say 'yes'. Some of their postings are rather thick indeed, in the good sense.
Secondly, it is not proven that in depth, long form discussion has more impact than short tit-for-tat exchanges on blogs. Indeed, I would think that change is more likely to come about through a combination of both long form discussion & short exchanges AROUND those long form postings.
You ask more specifically: how likely is it that a critical mass of people are going to start working for that change? As far as "critical mass" is concerned, I would think that Daily Kos has shown that critical mass can been attained when there is an issue that grabs the public's attention, to wit Obama vs Clinton during the primaries. As for change itself, according to Press Think's Jay Rosen, there has been some already.
Finally regarding tone, I would refer to Sullivan's posting today on ants where the question asked is this: Is it possible [...] that the invention of the Internet is leading to a similar social evolution of our own species? , which together with Freddie's posting above got me thinking not about a social evolution similar as that of the ants, in terms of boundaries and so forth although that is quite valid, but also in terms of human interaction. We do, as Freddie explains above, get to experience new feelings about ourselves. Is that such a bad thing?
I think the Internet can be/is many things and that it is futile to try to box it into whatever suits one's fancy. Andrew is right on the money when he writes: It's a real-time airing of provisional thought, and so, unless I were omniscient, I don't see how this could be otherwise. Some can legitimately see this as a weakness of blogging; I prefer to think of it as a strength, if it is seen for what it is. [my emphasis]
Personally, I blog mainly to share information that I have gleaned on the Internet from bloggers, researchers, book reviews, whatever, around themes that interest me. And as they say, because it's there (the Internet, I mean). Just that.
On “I, troll”
Scott, I think that what Alan has in mind when he writes about 'blogging' is not what I have in mind. Isn't what Greenwald does 'blogging' or Walt or Clemons and so many others? I would say 'yes'. Some of their postings are rather thick indeed, in the good sense.
Secondly, it is not proven that in depth, long form discussion has more impact than short tit-for-tat exchanges on blogs. Indeed, I would think that change is more likely to come about through a combination of both long form discussion & short exchanges AROUND those long form postings.
You ask more specifically: how likely is it that a critical mass of people are going to start working for that change? As far as "critical mass" is concerned, I would think that Daily Kos has shown that critical mass can been attained when there is an issue that grabs the public's attention, to wit Obama vs Clinton during the primaries. As for change itself, according to Press Think's Jay Rosen, there has been some already.
Finally regarding tone, I would refer to Sullivan's posting today on ants where the question asked is this: Is it possible [...] that the invention of the Internet is leading to a similar social evolution of our own species? , which together with Freddie's posting above got me thinking not about a social evolution similar as that of the ants, in terms of boundaries and so forth although that is quite valid, but also in terms of human interaction. We do, as Freddie explains above, get to experience new feelings about ourselves. Is that such a bad thing?
"
I think the Internet can be/is many things and that it is futile to try to box it into whatever suits one's fancy. Andrew is right on the money when he writes: It's a real-time airing of provisional thought, and so, unless I were omniscient, I don't see how this could be otherwise. Some can legitimately see this as a weakness of blogging; I prefer to think of it as a strength, if it is seen for what it is. [my emphasis]
Personally, I blog mainly to share information that I have gleaned on the Internet from bloggers, researchers, book reviews, whatever, around themes that interest me. And as they say, because it's there (the Internet, I mean). Just that.
On “the democracy fallacy”
Re. Islam is a faith of extreme submission, you might find this of interest.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.