i've been a registered member of dkos roughly since june and i was a lurker before that. my posts have consisted of adding little bits to open threads, three diary entries previous to this one (nothing really to speak of), and cracking jokes here and there. mostly i take in more than i contribute, and i still have vast amounts of information to absorb. now i've been reading the various reactions to
billmon's la times
op-ed (log in with kos@dailykos.com / dailykos), and i might be able to weigh in.
to me, the notion that it's "the blogging phenomenon itself that may need the last rites" is simply not true. rather, i think the surface of the phenomenon has only been scratched. because of the blogging tools on the internet, an individual has the potential capability to inexpensively reach a global audience. if that's not power, i don't know what is. some examples:
the image of the war president is one of my favorites (and as such, i have posted in an open thread on this before, so forgive the repeat please). the first place i saw it was on the home page of michaelmoore.com. which led me to the blog of the guy who made it, joe wezorek of american leftist. the next time i saw it was on the bbc international site, in an article about war images. then i saw it again on the bbc site, this time in the context of a protest in south korea (it's image #3). to summarize, one guy (who could really be anyone) creates an image and posts it on his blog. because of the exchange of information that the internet allows the image gets support from michael moore, and appears twice on the bbc international site... once because it's in a protest in south korea. and if you google it, you'll find references to it in a lot of places and in different languages.
while that particular example is an image, of course other information circulates too. while i shudder to think of what the mainstream media reports as it stands now, the thought of what they would report without blogs to keep them in check leaves me shaking. sometimes i truly wonder what i would be thinking had it not been for blogs and blog-like sites. dkos alone has been an immense help not only in helping me understand everything that's happening, but everyone here has also given me a good chance of holding my own in a discussion or argument. among other sites that i regularly visit are
juan cole for hard information and
riverbend for a human touch... both have content that i doubt i would be reading anywhere else.
and don't forget people who have used blogging as an avenue for other things. our very own founder has been invited to write a series of articles for the guardian. one of the first bloggers i started reading, oliver willis, happily moved back to redskins country to work for media matters. kevin drum has a nice bulleted list in this post that has more. and of course billmon who wrote the la times piece.
the commercial viability of some blogs is bound to increase, and i think it's great. on the whole, it will lend some legitimacy to the blogosphere. if the newly elevated blogger loses the original tone and theme of the blog, then the audience that was responsible for the blogger's popularity would simply move on. if one node on the network ceases to be useful, another node can take it's place (and attract the ad dollars).
yet there are others who drop out of the picture... billmon closed shop as well as some others mentioned here and those who have left the pages of dkos mentioned here. unfortunately i haven't been around long enough to have read some of those people, but i wonder if there's a common thread in their reasons for leaving and general disgust for the blogosphere...
in short, maybe it kinda goes like this:
bush represents corporate interest and all the ruthlessness that the bottom line entails. howard dean rises as a populist challenger with a foundation in the internet, offering a voice to the blogosphere... dean: "We listen. We pay attention. If I give a speech and the blog people don't like it, next time I change the speech." kerry, a candidate of the establishment, takes a step to the left, adopts a measure of dean's platform, and wins the nomination. the election cycle returns to a battle of the status quo in the eyes of some, thus destroying the hopes of those who thought real change was on the horizon. and they leave.
too soon perhaps. i think predictions of the "ending for a would-be revolution" are grossly premature. what does real change mean? the would-be revolution extends far beyond this election cycle, and real change will involve reframing the argument. i think the reason a lot of people are primarily abb (including myself) is that kerry isn't in a position to do that. the bush administration has pushed far enough to the extreme that left versus right is irrelevant. the real battle has become up versus down, in the form of corporate versus individual rights. on that scale, i would venture to put kerry a lot higher up than dean.
despite the heartache i sometimes have, i can't imagine being alive in an era as fascinating as this one. we are somewhere in the midst of globalization and the information age, which will likely be as fundamental to civilization as was agriculture and industrialization. this era is driven by multi-nationals that can operate across international borders, and quickly adapt to profit making opportunities. the key though, is that individuals are gaining the ability to exchange ideas globally using the very infrastructure that is a major component of corporate globalization.
blogging is dying? i think not. the big picture of globalization and the issues occurring within that context are not going anywhere anytime soon. and neither are the bloggers. hopefully those that have left are just taking a little break, and will come back to where they're needed when the election is over.
