It’s a blog about blogs. First I guess I’ll just say, I’m not the biggest blog person. I don’t have any that I read every post of. I use them more as supplementary news. I might see a link to one in a news article and read more about a topic. For the most part If I see a blog post on something, if it’s not from a source I know and trust I just pop open google and reasearch the topic myself. Twitter is microblogging, but I mostly just use it like an RSS feed for other sites. The main reason I don’t read blogs is because they are sort of an intermediate between someone posting on facebook and a proper published article. Most of the news or sources that I normally read have a full website, and multiple writers. There more likely to list sources, and are more likely to be held accountable if they say something horrible wrong.

I think thats the real problem that I have with blogs. Like the article points out, ANYONE can post ANYTHING in a blog. That puts the blogosphere in the same realm as people who will tell there oppinion to anyone. We have all seen (and moreso heard) those who would get into an argument in public. They don’t want a disscussion, they want you to hear what they have to say. Sure, you can post a comment, but it’s just not an even give an take. I personally like my news as pretty bland, straight forward information. If it’s a topic I care about, I reasearch the whole situation, or I can even go to a forum for color commentary.

That brings up the question of what good is a blog? I may not get much use from blogs myself, but I do think they have value. I don’t think they can every supplement news….good old accountable news. In the present, I can defend blogs the same way i can free speech. It’s great to have a place where people can say, and ask what they want. It’s a good starting place for actual disscussion and accountable news. You can’t just read a blog and take it as fact. You need to do the in depth research yourself. The news can’t just take a question and ask it, they have to have a platform to ask it from. A political figure being a crook is important, but the headline of “Is he a crook” has weight, as mentioned in the article. That’s why I think blogs should only be step one of information, bringing a topic forward for further inspection.

They also are great in retrospect. You can really see what people were thinking in the moment. In an anthropological sence, you can really see what people were thinking, and why they were thinking it. For something like that, it doesn’t matter if they are correct or not. Similar to an old journal from the past. It might be an interesting as an emerging form of study.

Overall, blogs are fine. The only problem is that people have to understand what they are. Just because it looks like a news article doesn’t mean it has the credability of one. You can’t silence a blog anymore then you can a person on the side of the street. You can’t have someone decide who is credable and who isn’t for you. The first amendment puts that responsabilty on us. It’s buisness as usual, don’t believe everything that you read… except this blog.