Chicago Tribune Article About Blogging

Long time reader, first time diarist.  If I messed up, my apologies.

I woke up this morning to read this ridiculous story about blogging.  I guess I shouldn't be too disappointed, since it is the Chicago Tribune, but when the SCLM tries to show blogging in a conservative light, something must be done.

Continued below...

This is the letter I sent to the editor:

I was very disappointed to read an article by Howard Witt, entitled "True or False: Blogs Always Tell It Straight."  The entire article discusses the impact of conservative blogs on the issue of the TANG documents.

What upsets me is the lack of mention of any liberal blogs, such as DailyKOS, MyDD and TalkingPointsMemo.  Your article implies that blogging began as a result of the TANG documents, while really blogging emerged with Howard Dean's campaign and his accompanying blog, Blog For America.  Giving the URL's for three conservative blogs, while failing to acknowledge liberal and centrist blogs, presents a biased and unbalanced view of the issue of blogging.

Any thoughts from the SCLB's?

•  I beg to differ

  I don't see any evidence of a conservative bias in that article--and I grew up reading the Chicago Tribune, which is the paper of record in these parts, so I'm well aware of its conservative leanings.

  Seems to me that what the author is doing is pointing out that a lot of the conservatives behind these attack blogs are not terribly willing to be upfront about their own identities (and the point would be equally valid for some of us on the left; I keep my own identity at least moderately concealed on my blog because I have a public position and I want to avoid as much as possible any impression that I'm speaking for the institution where I work when I'm running off my mouth over at my place). The author also notes that many of them seem positively eager to hide the fact that in "real life" they work for conservative organs that could naturally be presumed to hold an inherent bias against the SCLM and the Democratic Party and its candidates, whereas it's essential for their effectiveness in the blogosphere to be perceived as just another ordinary person.

  Yes, the article specifically only mentions the conservative blogs who have been attacking Dan Rather, but that's because they're the subject of the piece, not blogging in general. The article did also mention the guy who founded Texans for Truth, although one could argue that one lefty blog does not equal three righty ones--particularly when one of the righties is the odious LGF. On the other hand, I like to think that quality (TfT) will beat quantity (LGF) any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

  by musing85 on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 10:02:37 AM PDT

•  Saw it too

  Yeah, they also had some professer say that if you "Read only Left wing blogs you will think Bush is a criminal. Which isn't a plausible belief"

  Yeah it isn't a plausible belief... if you don't consider one thing - THE FACTS.

  by Disgusted on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 11:49:22 AM PDT