In the N&R, Michael Skube questions the value of blogs (unposted). A virtually content-free rant, citing no blogs, showing no signs he did any research by reading blogs. You know the lyrics, sing along: blogs are navel-gazing, commentary not reporting, diaries by teenage girls, deedle deedle dee. As a professional journalist, let me offer a professional journalistic critique of Skube's piece: crap.

Comments

[Patrick Eakes]

Second odd column by Skube Du lately, following the unnecessary attack on Durham.

[David Hoggard]

You forgot to add the word "total" to your well thought out critique.

[jw]

He does make a couple of good points. Not all of us are as responsible as we should be, yet we're all lumped together. Most people, I think, are capable of figuring out the difference, but what about those who can't or don't? That's what I worry about in the same way that I worry about the influence a, oh, let's use the Rhino as an example, has on the community. I don't want ANYONE to mistakenly take what I say as seriously as Cone, or Hogg, or Sue, or Ben, or any of the others who are credible. I worry about the damage that can be done by irresponsible blogging, especially when it comes to local politics. Yeah, still beating that same drum!

[Ed Cone]

Right: one of the lame things Skube does is lump bloggers together without bothering to differentiate between types, much less individuals. It's like generalizing about people who publish in print, without differentiating between the NY Times and a book of nursery rhymes.

[L]

Skube should consult his Elon students for the relevancy of blogs. I get monster hits from there, a product of students turned TV station interns turned blog readers. Hia assertion that bloggers never go outside to experience the real world is so broad and out of touch, it's laughable. Saddle up with me for a day, I'll teach him things he won't learn in a classroom. If today's article is indicative of what he's teaching tomorrow's journalists, some tuition-paying parents are getting robbed.

[Lenslinger]

Lenslinger, that is...

[Lex]

My parents brought me up not to speak ill of the dead, but for the journalistically dead, I think they'd grant me an exception.

[John Robinson]

You can't do nothing with columnists, you know.

[jsykes]

My, my. The solipsistic flag is flying high in here. On that point and his point about bloggers not being content to be in the background, I thought Skube was right on.
The majority of his column was rather weak though. But I must credit the GNR for having a balance to Sue's piece.
I'm going to refrain from commenting on JR's weak post. He must have that same attitude for his bureau reporters, which accounts for the repetitive, formulaic writing they pass of as journalism in some of their outlying ad-cannabilizi... I mean circulation areas.

Blogo Ergo Sum. Now that was funny.

[Ed Cone]

A reader writes: "It does seem though, that Sue's blog excerpts above Skube's jump help prove his point. Off she rants about downtown and business, and Harris Teeter, Friendly Center and business, with her opinion firmly entrenched and her knowledge of her particular subjects sorely lacking. Does she call DGI to ask what services they offer small businesses? Sorry, no. Does she call Starmount to see what they don't open at nice HT downtown? Sorry again. Just a rant. Just an opinion. And sorry Ed, not journalism. Not even in the ballpark. There are answers to Sue's questions, she just can't be bothered to ask them. Why? That's easy. She knows less about journalism than downtown development."

[Ed Cone]

JSykes, you credit the N&R for running a counterpoint, even when it's really weak? What's the value there? That's the fallacy of much current news and opinion journalism: "balance" at all costs.

BTW, you are right that Skube used a clever line -- unfortunately, it shows (again) his ignorance of web culture: "Blogo ergo sum" has 27,000 Google hits, "Blogito ergo sum" has 30,000. I used the latter, briefly, as a tagline at my blog in the summer of 2002...but discovered it was well-worn even then.