« the last cat supper | Main | run, joey, run: now you have can suffer, too! »

here a blowhard, there a blowhard

Norah Vincent (L.A. Times): Putting the Brakes on Blowhard 'Bloggers'

But there's a flip side to this. As much as the blogosphere is full of brave and vital input, it's also full of the careless, mad and sometimes vengeful ravings of half-wits who will say anything, especially about established journalists and writers, just to attract more attention to their sites. This can get ugly when content is unregulated. (emphasis mine)

Note to those "established journalists and writers" who feel picked on:

Being an established journalist or writer does not exempt you from being ripped apart by the general public, bloggers included.

Being an established journalist or writer does not necessarily mean that your words aren't full of smug, self-righteous bullshit and should be torn apart mercilessly by those who posses more wits about them than you will gather in your closed-off brain in your entire lifetime.

In the major media world, editors and fact-checkers try to catch inaccuracies, excise lies and slanders and print corrections and retractions for mistakes that slip into print. But few bloggers follow this protocol. What they say, however outrageous or unfounded, tends to stick.

Is she saying that the words of half-wits and blowhards carry more weight in the world of the written word than the established journalists and writers themselves?

Blogging is one of the best things that has ever happened to freedom of expression and the press, and we should make every effort to protect its scrupulous practitioners. But freedoms come with responsibilities. Common journalistic standards of accuracy and fair play exist for good reasons, and bloggers, like the rest of us, must abide by them.

No, they don't have to. They should, but they don't have to. If that were the case, there would be a lot of blowhard, half-witted bloggers out there having to defend their mad and vengeful rantings on a daily basis.

Besides, I could probably name more established journalists who do not engage in standards of fair play and accuracy than I can bloggers. But I guess that's the benefit of being paid to be a paid blowhard. It creates a certain smugness when a paycheck lets you call it journalism instead of blogging.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference here a blowhard, there a blowhard:

» http://www.juangato.com/blog/002952.php from Juan Gato's Bucket o' Rants
Ah, more reactionary hoodoo from our betters (already being handled by Michele) about how we idiot amateurs play fast and [Read More]

» Everywhere a Blowhard from Solonor's Ink Well
We tell our kids all the time, "It's not what you say; it's the way you say it." In an [Read More]


She's just mad because her profession is becoming obsolete.

She's saying the mainstream media fact checks? Horse manure. I've caught CNN more than once blindly printing AP feeds on their website when the headline directly contradicted the article, and all I got back was a form letter. They never fixed it either. And of course, there's always Ted Rall, as far as ranting screeds go...this sounds like a case of the pot calling the white picket fence black to me. Maybe she needs to look in the mirror, or at least hold her world up to one, before she goes after other media.

Ted Rall is often the victim of my angry, hateful, half-witted rants.

And unlike many mainstream journalists and writers, I don't put scare quotes around the word "terrorism" and I don't refer to suicide bombers as militants.

I'd be vengeful, but sadly that part of my wit is in the half that is missing. Now my need for attention was split across my whole wit when I once had it, now it is in shared custody and I only get it on weekends when I usually don't post.

Who's gonna protect bloggers -- and the rest of the public -- from angry, halfwitted, blowhard journalists who've got the editorial staff and the law lackeys of something like the NYT backing them up? I don't for no fancy corporate paper that has a shyster on call if I piss some rich dude off. Norah can shut her piehole.

Mmmm, that was a good rant. Now I have to start on that freakazoid senator Patty.

Er, that should be "I don't work for no fancy corporation."

I think that Virginia is campaigning hard to become the model for my Statue of Bloggery.

If Norah had done a tad more reading and a tad less fulminating, she would have seen that blogdom fact-checks its own collective ass every bit as much as it does CNN's or Fisk's.

(Wasn't this the selfsame person who started soliciting funds on about Day Two of her blog, only to have it pointed out that it's on Blogspot and doesn't cost anything but consternation?)

Oooh, I smell BUTTON! Who's a good button maker? I wants me a "Official Blowhard Blogger" button.

AP? Accurate? struggles to control waves of laughter I work at a TV station in a smaller market so stuff from our area rarely makes it outside of our direct area. On the rare instance that the AP wire picks something up, 9 times out of 10 there are major factual errors and we have to call them and yell at them.

If a blogger puts something innacurate in their blog, what happens? Within a couple hours there's a comment from other bloggers saying "wait a second." In mainstream media you maybe get a retraction in 10pt font the next day on page 20.

Woah! I went off on a rant there didn't I! Annoying newsies will do that to me.

Steve is so right! Journalists, especially the so-called "established" types, are sometimes the worst offenders when it comes to not checking facts. But nevermind the "facts," even they can be twisted and turned to suit biases and agendas. Take the NYT for example...Their "established journalists" routinely write headlines and articles that--while factual--are constructed in such a way as to emphasize points of view so obvious, they border on Op/Ed pieces.

Facts aren't the holy Grail Norah seems to think they are, intellectual honesty is. At least most bloggers make quite clear their biases up front so readers can use their own discretion in digesting their material. The "establishment" still pretends all they do is "report facts."

Bullshit and they know it.

As if they don't sneak their own sorry little opinions into their "writings"and then hide behind some vacuous(and ,yes,soon to be obsolete)credentials .EF EM ALL.I stopped buying their little paper products(ie,theSF Comical)a long time ago and I trust Michele and her compatriots way more that those wadsworths because at least there is some clear passion in their postings and there is no doubt as to which way they lean.Christ,your page is better than network news, SNL and Tiger Beat combined.

Sounds as though Ms. Norah is feeling a bit insecure about her place in The Realm of Ideas these days.
Were I not so damned drunk, I might be able to draw an interesting and cogent analogy between Vincent's whiny diatribe and the intemperate, shrilly hysterical screeds of the anti-homeschooling crowd.
But hey, it's late...gimme a break.

Oh,Pearl,please rant away.I'll pour myself another ......

Norah is dead wrong in overgeneralizing about bloggers. But the accusation that she "plagiarized" was just laughable.

AUTHOR: Sekimori
EMAIL: stacy@sekimori.com
URL: http://www.blogatelle.com
DATE: 12/21/2002 02:52:13 AM

Didn't you know? The first amendment only applies to paid "journalists" and what THEY deem to be right.

Queen of the Whole Fucking Internet.

That is all I have to say. sniff

No fact checking? One of my chief amusements is watching the blogosphere turning, within the hour, on any cyber-pundit for posting so much as a comma splice.

I have been led by references and blogdexing, upon times, to aprroach Ms. Vincent's writing. I'm afraid I have never found her to match the endorsements of her admirers. My problem may be where some say she is a libertarian I find little evidence.

BTW Thank you for iterating that rights in no way oblige responsibility. A sense of responsibility is nice, of course, unless one prefers to live alone, ignored, shunned, and detested. Certainly, one may be held accountable for assaults on the rights of another, but that is something else entirely.

BRAVA, Michele!!!! You nailed it.

If this blogging medium does nothing else, it will be to serve notice on the corporate media that they'd best get their act together, because they've finally had their dream come true: we're reading what they're writing. And guess what? We're writing back...


PS - Stacey - LOVE the button. It's going up.

YES, that button is going on my blog as well! Thanks for sharing it.

A 'vengeful raving' is only as powerful as its captive audience...

As in any medium, an unchallenged, or widely worshipped, writer will eventually dig their own grave in a fit of perceived invincibility.

However, just as regulations do not exist for bloggers, they are absent for those that see fit to criticise them, unless the owner imposes them themselves.

Therefore, although bloggers seem to be allowed much greater freedoms with their vitriol, they receive far less polite challenges, complaints and general responses than those you'd read on the average letters page on a given day.

For every action...

too funny. you know you only ream the liberal mass media morons for the hit count. not because what you're saying is, you know, true. or anything.

She's just mad because it was Bloggers that got Lott ousted and not anyone really in her "profession".

For some reason, instead of reading "established journalists" in your quote, I saw "established janitors".