Blogging and the Fourth Dimension

The fourth dimension being time, of course. The most important thing about comedy.

In this case, it is certainly an important element of blogging - but certainly not the most important. Far and away the most important element of blogging is the quality of published material. Whether it's a recipe, a personal experience, or commentary; engagingly and well-written content will help your blog to be successful.

Obviously timing plays a role in that.

A recipe for Christmas cookies in April, or for a Thanksgiving Turkey in February will not be viewed as particularly salient or timely and thus as unimportant.

A personal experience will probably be conveyed with more clarity and emotion if it happened this morning than if it happened 20 years ago - however much you were able to ruminate upon it in the interim.

Commentary - unless a novel take on a historic event - is also unlikely to turn heads if the event is no longer interesting.

I think that there is an important caveat to that third point. There are some blogs, by virtue of persistence, luck, or what have you, are newsbreakers. They get their hands on a story immediately and share it with the world. The other newsbreaking sites - if they haven't already received the information from the source, will quickly take your hint and repurpose it for themselves. There aren't a whole lot of sites that can do this.

For example, if five minutes from now, aliens landed in Detroit and started having conversations with people on the street (let's assume that they have vocal chords capable of producing a range of sounds audible to humans and that they have somehow learned English and that the atmospheric conditions of Earth are not fatal to their alien biologies, etc.).

People would go to CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. for their news. They would also go to the equivalently well-regarded online news sites. News-seekers would also likely pay attention to a blogger who credibly claims to have spoken to the aliens or was there when it happened. Perhaps he is even Twittering his encounters in real time from his cell phone.

The point is that you either have to have pre-existing credibility, the product of consistently breaking meaningful news in a timely manner, or you have to have an amazing angle.

That was an extreme example.

Let's say that there is an acquisition that has been in the works for nearly a week. It is no longer extremely new when it finally occurs, but it is still being discussed because it real. It has manifested. This is like being inundated for weeks by the scientific and trivial explanations of an upcoming lunar eclipse. It's not particularly novel but people write about it the next day anyways.

As I said before, it takes a certain degree of credibility to break these stories, both new and "old" news. Credibility that many of us - myself included - lack.

The best thing that we can do is to comment on the commentators. React to the reactors. In short: blog the bloggers.

By commenting on the blogs and articles of credible sources, you add to your own credibility - assuming, of course, that your comments are meaningful.

Doing this puts yourself and - more importantly - your ideas in front of the influencers and the people being influenced. If your ideas are valid, that audience might be convinced to go to you first. Gradually your role will change from a commentator to more of a reactionary.

In a sense, this evolution is a testament to the conversational - that is to say - reciprocal nature of new media. The readers not only determine what is written, but who writes it and from what perspective.

Power to the people.

"Late Night" with Reed

Normally at this time on a weeknight, I'd be asleep. Lame, I know, but I run every morning at 6, so I try to go to bed at around 10:00 p.m.

This morning I didn't run because I think I'm developing or have developed a stress fracture in my right foot. The top of my foot hurts considerably when I run or walk. My plan is to take a few days off and see if it gets better. If not, I'll go to the doctor and take some time off from running and just swim.

But back to why I'm up so late.

It's not that I'm not tired. I'm exhausted. I'd like to go to sleep. I can't.

I have a pie in the oven.

It's a pumpkin pie that I'm baking for an office pie-baking competition being held tomorrow. This is actually the second pie I've baked tonight but I was afraid that I'd ruined the first one so I started making the second before the first was done baking. I didn't realize that the "easy-bake" pie filling that I'd bought already had water mixed into it so I added more milk than was needed. As a result, the pie filling was the consistency of soup rather than of custard.

As it turns out, it turned out. The first pie was delicious. Oh well, I guess that means my coworkers get one pie and I get the other!

Anyways, I know that the following quote has already been thrown around the blogosphere more than a few times today, but I thought I'd add my two cents:

"The fact is that (Moulitsas is) not a journalist in terms of someone who knows how to do reporting, someone who reflects balance in what he portrays. To the contrary, he engages in the kind of hyperbole and extreme statements that are represented by that crass and I think offensive statement that he made about those dead people. But you know what? I think that’s just what’s going on in journalism. I think that there’s more and more opinion, less and less people who know how to do the job. All you gotta do is shout, say something on the blog that offends and attacks the other side and suddenly you have the credentials and you’re said to be a journalist. I think it’s a great lie.”

- "Liberal" FOX news commentator Juan Williams

I got it from Talk Left (www.talkleft.com) It was linked there from (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/15/dailykos_smeared_again_on_hannity_colmes.php)

All I want to say is that even if that's what blogs do - which is an enormous concession - shouting something on a blog, even if that something offends and attacks the other side, allows the other side to respond. There is reciprocity. I don't know whether or not it makes you a journalist, but what is a rose by any other name? Would the discussion be not as enlightening? Would the issues raised be not worthy of consideration? And would each side not gain insight into the other?

I don't think it matters if you call the person a journalist, blogger, or something in between. All that matters is the advancement of the public discourse.

Blogging is a conversation and - in my opinion - is the most effective way to achieve that level of discourse. Although I have enormous respect for most of the journalistic community (and hope perhaps one day to join it) journalism isn't necessarily a conversation. Most journalists are far harder to reach than most bloggers and thus it is more difficult to have a conversation with them.

That doesn't mean that both journalists and bloggers, even if they merely "offend and attack" the other side, can't start the conversation. Even if they don't themselves listen to the responses, others will. And so we can stand on the shoulders of giants (or perhaps of giant assholes).