In the ongoing saga that is the debate over whether blog writers are parasitical hacks or legitimate voices, there’s a new article in the LA Times that sides with the bloggers. Jay Rosen, a professor at NYU (as an alumnus, I cheer), has taken issue with Michael Skube’s assertion that all blogs are useless attempts at journalism. Rosen not only offers reasons why Skube’s opinions are wrong (and, “irretrievably lame”), but seriously critiques his journalism. For instance, in Skube’s article critiquing blogs, there were very few actual blogs mentioned, and none of them were actually dissected point by point. I don’t know why, but this seems to be a hallmark of unfavorable coverage of blogs. Whenever people diss blogs, they do so in the abstract, treating the blogosphere as a vast amorphous entity, kind of like The Blob in the 1950s movie. Single blogs are never singled out – probably because they would confound the critical attacks. One of the blogs that was mentioned in Skube’s article – Josh Marshall’s blog – was inserted by an editor, and Michael Skube had never even seen it. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
The only blogger Skube mentions in detail is Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who runs the blog Daily Kos. Unfortunately, after Skube quotes him to make a point about the relationship between MSM (mainstream media) and bloggers, he doesn’t match any of the supposed negative characteristics of blogs up to Zuniga’s site. In other words, Skube doesn’t have a single concrete example. And who’s doing terrible journalism?
