In Response

My answer to this question.

Firstly, I don't think we need editors, I think we need to edit ourselves better than we do. Apparently I wasn't clear on that subject at the bar (which will happen a few shots of Jaeger, a few Mandarin and 7, and a few other unremembered shots into the conversation) we don't write like professionals and, yeah, I think that makes a difference. This site is littered with typos and grammatical errors as are the grand majority of sites. I tend to leave myself a little leeway on the subject because i don't happen to have the time to edit myself as well as I should. I don't fool myself into thinking it doesn't matter, though.

I do think we need oversight, or at least real accountability, if we're to be the influence that some people want us to be. Until someone takes us seriously enough to sue one of the more outrageous for slander or libel, we aren't important enough to be taken seriously.

The easy response, of course, is what about Memogate or one of the other times that bloggers have had some level of influence on the course of events. Sure, you can point to a few moments where blogs have made a difference, but those points are few and far between.

And I don't believe that journalists are in lock step with each other. Yes, I do believe that there is a decided liberal bias in the mainstream media, but I also believe that the most journalists try to do their best to keep their editorializing to a minimum. I don't expect complete objectivity in the news; that would be boring.

The most interesting argument that I heard at the fest of drinking was that while blogs may not influence most Americans through their writing, they do influence the opinion-makers. That is, mainstream journalists and the people that are running the campaigns are paying attention. I think there is truth to this, but I also think that the effect is probably overstated.

When Dean and Clark ran their campaigns it was supposed to have heralded a breakthrough in the power of the Internet to mobilize voters and focus message and purpose. Dean isn't doing anything other than providing the odd (and odd) sound-bite for the party lately, and Clark seems to have disappeared entirely. So much for that revolution.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, for blogs to be meaningful they need to be more responsible and more professional. As much as I enjoy blogging, as much value as I do find in it, I still think the negatives make it hard for me to take the impact that blogs have on events too seriously.

That isn't to say that blogs won't grow into a more important role, but if you think we're there already just walk down the street and start asking people how much they care what Instapundit thinks about any specific issue. Then ask them about Dan Rather. Dan, even in his embattled state and even with the obvious and real questions about his credibility, will still have more recognition and more people who consider him to be a trustworthy source.

I'm not saying that I believe blogs are completely without influence or that they are worthless; I think there is a great potential for blogs to have a positive influence on public debate over all kinds of policies. I simply believe they aren't there yet, that some people overstate their importance, and that for blogs to become truly influential there has to be some kind of accountability in something other than the latest troll comment on the site.

I've addressed this issue here, too. Blogs can be good and we've seen that blogs can be powerful; working for relevance and impact are both good and wonderful things. That doesn't make blogs more, though, than they are--it just gives all of us who blog a goal to strive for.

I know that at least a few people that I know and respect disagree with me on this subject. That doesn't bother me in the least; keep doing your damnedest to prove me wrong and I'll be happy.