Oh no, I just blogged all over your internet

In today's Globe and Mail Christie Blatchford has an article commenting on the current trend of journalists, particularly those covering the Beijing Olympics, being expected to create large amounts of content, especially in the form of blog posts and other web based content. Ms. Blatchford seemed particularly upset that a moment of relaxation she shared with a colleague was blogged about (or that such a moment would be blogged about). In a more general sense, she just seemed upset at the direction in which the creation of news related content was heading, particularly that it was heading away from the tradition in which she was trained.

One concept introduced in the article that I found particularly shocking was that a reporter or writer might only be able to write a limited number of words per day. While I don't mean to suggest that one can produce an unlimited number of quality words per day, or even that most people can produce several thousand words a day of high quality content, the idea that there is some kind of invariable hard cap on the number of words one can write a day is somewhat ridiculous. It seems to me that a more reasonable to suggestion would link the number of possible words with available content and skill, and that this, rather than a somewhat mechanical limit, is the limiting factor when it comes to most journalistic output.

A more pertinent point raised by the author is that much of what is written about on blogs is somewhat unimportant, maybe even mundane and unworthy of attention. While I agree with Ms. Blatchford on this point (as this blog is no exception), the reading of such content is completely voluntary and in the hands of the reader. No one is forcing blog content on anyone. Readers are free to read my posts or not read my posts, and, as I am not being paid for such content no employer is being ripped off when I produce sub-standard content (though a few of you may waste a few seconds skimming my drivel).

What Ms. Blatchford completely neglects to mention in her anti-blog rant is the important role that blogs play when it comes to disseminating views and information. In many cases blogs have started to play a vital role in contemporary political discourse, frequently providing a venue for views and opinions that might not be found in more traditional news sources. Furthermore, and this can sometimes be a problem, the ability for blogs and digital content to skip many traditional production processes allows for quicker transmission of information. In some cases those who have experienced an event are then able to provide their own reports on events before such events are covered by traditional media (if they events ever would have even been covered by traditional media). That most of this content is created by unpaid individuals makes it all the more impressive.

Anyway, maybe I missed the author's point, but I don't really think that is the case as the title "I'm not blogging this, mark my words" is pretty explicit. Unfortunately, I imagine that the views expressed in the article likely sum up the sentiments of a large number of individuals. As long as this view is widely held we will fail to gain the full benefit of these powerful new media.