Blogs as defined by the Times

This is from The Times Online:

Even the best blogs are parasitic on what their practitioners contemptuously call the “mainstream media”. Without a story to comment on or an editorial to rubbish, they would have nothing to say.

Most blogs have nothing to say even then. Without editorial control, they are unconstrained by sense, proportion or grammar. Almost by definition, they are the preserve of those with time on their hands. Blogs have a few successes in harrying miscreant politicians or newspapers, but they are a vehicle for perpetuating myths as much as correcting them.

<sarcasm>It’s reassuring to know that this comes from the Murdoch-owned press.</sarcasm> I could rip this to shreds – as could every blogger – but I just cannot be bothered.

2 thoughts on “Blogs as defined by the Times

  1. I can’t find an email addy for you so I hope you don’t mind this here. Assuming you’re the one who put the T2 WordPress file permissions page together, I can’t thank you enough. Someone hacked my site early this am and replaced my index.php (on only one theme, thankfully) with theirs. They also changed the admin password and email account. Thankfully I was able to change all that and now I’ve got the file permissions going. I had stuff WAY too open. So, a long winded Thank You Very Much for posting the information you do.

  2. All it does is illustrate that “blogs” basically means “a form of website”. Blogs is wordplay, there is no such thing as blogs.

    There are: news sites, online diaries, promotional sites, link lists, articles, personal pages.. etc etc. All share some basic form, but not the function.

    There is a lot of truth to the statements if you concider blogs just as the LJ/MySpace/Blogger crowd, and they are the majority of “blog” sites. It’s still bullshit though, even if it’s kind of true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *