We are less hurt by the contempt of fools than by the lukewarm approval of men of intelligence.
Luc de Clapiers de Vauvenargues (1715-1747)
Read the incredibly pompous opinion in the Opinion Journal by Joseph Rago and see which category you think he fits into. Mr. Rago has an utter contempt for blogs, bloggers and pretty much anything to do with the interwebby tubes.
Every conceivable belief is on the scene, but the collective prose, by and large, is homogeneous: A tone of careless informality prevails; posts oscillate between the uselessly brief and the uselessly logorrheic; complexity and complication are eschewed; the humor is cringe-making, with irony present only in its conspicuous absence; arguments are solipsistic; writers traffic more in pronouncement than persuasion . . .
The way we write affects both style and substance. The loquacious formulations of late Henry James, for instance, owe in part to his arthritis, which made longhand impossible, and instead he dictated his writing to a secretary. In this aspect, journalism as practiced via blog appears to be a change for the worse. That is, the inferiority of the medium is rooted in its new, distinctive literary form. Its closest analogue might be the (poorly kept) diary or commonplace book, or the note scrawled to oneself on the back of an envelope–though these things are not meant for public consumption. The reason for a blog's being is: Here's my opinion, right now.
Yessirree Bob, or Joseph in this case. Here's my opinion right now. It's completely contained by the quote that leads this post. As you point out in your piece, nobody wants to be an imbecile.
We forgive you.
UPDATE: Others suitably impressed with Mr. Rago: QandO, Ace of Spades, Gun Toting Liberal, News Busters, Joe's Dartblog, PoliBlog, EU Referendum, Protein Wisdom, Ed Driscoll, The Moderate Voice, Decision '08, Fraters Libertas, Daily Pundit, Polimom Says, Beltway Blogroll, Balloon Juice, snapped shot, BizzyBlog, Seeing the Forest, The Astute Bloggers, Junk Yard Blog, Penraker,
I don’t think “vastation” means what he thinks it means. Guess the vaunted editorial process missed that one.
Vastation
\Vas*ta”tion\, n. [L. vastatio, fr. vastare to lay waste, fr. vastus empty, waste.] A laying waste; waste; depopulation; devastation. [Obs.] –Bp. Hall.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
It does in the context, but it is a pretentious use of an obsolete word.
Since the sourcing for one AP Iraq story is possibly questionable thus making all AP Iraq stories suspect, does this idiotic WSJ Editorial make all WSJ Editorials idiotic also?
Just askin’
Pingback: Gun Toting Liberal â„¢ » Blog Archive » Wall Street Journal Editor: Most blogs, even the popular ones are awful and boring
Pingback: Sister Toldjah » On criticism of the media and blogs