Rebecca Blood idolizes the weblog

Rebecca Blood certainly makes some interesting and reasonable claims in "weblogs: a history and perspective" but I regret to insist that she exaggerates the power of the weblog and the blog.

Ms. Blood claims that "By writing a few lines each day, weblog editors begin to redefine media as a public, participatory endeavor," which sounds very nice. Yet what are 'these few lines'? Don't forget that we were told only a few paragraphs before: "An editor with some expertise in a field might demonstrate the accuracy or innaccuracy of a highlighted article or certain facts therein; provide additional facts he feels are pertinent to the issue at hand; or simply add an opinion or differing viewpoint from the one in the piece he has linked." That means this:

URI.EDU how does a state funded organization deal with a waning budget? It buys new bait.

After I hit publish on this post have I affected the fundaments of media? No. I may change someone's mind, but that has nothing to do with blogging. As Joannah would probably say- that's rhetoric.

Another lovely half truth of Blood's essay is when she establishes the credibility of the weblog editors: "A weblog editor had either taught herself to code HTML for fun, or, after working all day creating commercial websites, spent several off-work hours every day surfing the web and posting to her site. These were web enthusiasts."

That may be true, generally speaking. But that does not mean that everyone in 1998 with a blog or weblog was a credible source of information. I knew enough HTML to start a weblog in 1998, when I was 12. I could teach you enough HTML to start a weblog in ten minutes.

I agree with Blood that the internet is a good place to express ideas- as Blood says, "[Weblog editors'] fearless commentary reminds us to question the vested interests of our sources of information and the expertise of individual reporters as they file news stories about subjects they may not fully understand." But let's not forget that anyone can lie about anything, anytime, with very little threat of redress on the internet. The appearance of credibility is still only appearance.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing good things about the internet. Yes it's true that the "blogger, by virtue of simply writing down whatever is on his mind, will be confronted with his own thoughts and opinions. Blogging every day, he will become a more confident writer." But that's true of any writer. And maybe "a community of 100 or 20 or 3 people may spring up around the public record of his thoughts," and "being met with friendly voices, he may gain more confidence..." yadda yadda yadda the flowers bloom and birds sing. But it would be better for him to develop a community of writers in the community in which he lives. Near the house to which his internet is connected.

I agree with the heart of Blood's essay-- her second to last paragraph.

Blood flounders as she begins her penultimate paragraph: "And what, really, will change if we get weblogs into every bookmark list?" The silence residing within the page echoes the word 'nothing' in my ears.

I love that Blood asserts, "We urgently need to cultivate forms of self-expression in order to counteract our self-defensive numbness and remember what it is to be human." Although, I would call 'our self-defensive numbness' by the name of apathy, sloth, and affluence. But blogging is not a sufficient form of self-expression to combat any malaise and remind us of "what it is to be human."

I entirely agree with Blood when she says "We are being pummeled by a deluge of data and unless we create time and spaces in which to reflect, we will be left with only our reactions." But I completely disagree with the concept that anything on the internet is an antidote to the crippling effects of a media-saturated culture.

Essentially Blood thinks that nerds making snippy comments when they post links is going to subvert an omnipresent media-marketing machine.

Allow me to put this all into a nutshell: Blood is correct to say that the internet can provide information that is not under the strains of typical dissemination. But anything on the internet is always another drop in the bucket of the "deluge of data". If you want to swim outside the mainstream, figure it out for yourself- don't rely on the internet.