 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Thursday, October 23, 2003
I guess I just disagree with the suggestion (or the implication, anyway) that political polemics in the blog world are little different than those in the more detached worlds of print and broadcast. Strongly held though their opinions may be, I sense in Reynolds, Sullivan, Sawicky, Kos, Kaus and others more than a small degree of open-mindedness -- or at least a willingness -- to engage readers, and other bloggers, in a conversation that goes somewhere beyond their committed positions. Glenn Reynolds especially seems to go out of his way to be fair, open and nonjudgemental about subjects where his opinions aren't complete, or where the facts are not all in place. I believe that's one reason why he is so widely read, and why he serves as a resource for so many. On the nonpolitical (techblogger) side, even highly opnionated guys like Dave Winer are often wide open to other opinions, and to having their own opinions changed. I've seen this happen many times. My 1997 letter to Dave in about Steve Jobs is just one example. Bottom line, I don't think the kind of partisan punditry that works on editorial pages and talk shows would work very well here. This is where the rubber of opinion meets the road of reality. We're not behind podia or pulpitizing on op ed pages here. We're going after knowledg, and we're doing it together. There's a limit to how closed you can be and still add useful material to ongoing discussions, much less attract any readers besides the ones that want to scratch behind your ears. As for the attraction of politics right now, I think it has everything to do with The Times (and I don't mean the newspaper). For better or worse, 9-11 put is into a new context. The war efforts that followed have kept us there. And now we're in a presidential election season that will continue for the next year. We have at least one candidate who has been engaged by the Net in a huge way. There will be others. This gives us a lot to talk about.
|
