-
Website
http://www.vinnylingham.com -
Original page
http://www.vinnylingham.com/offline-print-journalist-calls-bloggers-wackos-who-gun-down-their-fellow-students.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Whatever...
Calling blogging the air guitar of journalism is some pretty serious link baiting, though....
One first figures out that one is deceived by trusting the media in one's specialty but you keep going back to reading it anyway because they do serve to identify "hot" news even if they get the facts and interpretation wrong more often than not but you still trust that the general stuff is fine.
Then you discover just about every other specialist you ask is working similarly distrusts the mainstream media on their specialty, you connect the dots and decide the MSM is just unreliable for specialist stuff entirely. At a certain point the penny drops and you find out they are unreliable about *everything*.
It's at this point where heavy denial sets in because people at this stage still consume mass media product, they are just very angry about it. There is a huge residual well of trust, of tribal affiliation, deep psychological stuff that nobody much likes to look at, especially when things turn personal.
But the centre cannot hold. To reduce one's blood pressure and preserve your mental state, alternate media starts getting consumed more and more and the psychological deference granted to the MSM drops with each badly reported story.
The final phase is where you don't care anymore, merely dropping in to comment areas like this one, hoping to ease along others who may be trapped in earlier stages of the process. So widen your news sources and resign yourself to cobbling together a set of trusted news sources out of the "new media". The old media is falling apart and relying on it exclusively is starting to be downright embarrassing.
If you could not discern that then it leads me to think that there may be more than an element of truth in Bullards comments about bloggers?
Gary:
Your point could equally be directed at Vincent Maher. The fact of the matter is that Bullard has a huge audience and significant influence, and given the nature of the different segments that we target, less than 1% of his readers will ever see the blogosphere challenge him.
His post was obviously meant to evoke emotion and incite the sort of posts that I have just made, however, the other 99% do not have the ability to discern and will read, absorb and believe much of what he writes.
The sad truth is that for the average consumer, print media is still more trusted than online - but that is the changing face of media. That said, doesn't Bullard have an interest in maintaining that edge and if he is in this position of power and influence over his readers, does it mean that he should abuse it?
On a balanced view, I think he was definitely trying to incite the blogosphere, but also, deep down, he really did get his beliefs across.
Such is the nature of free speech - you have my views and responses, simply because I am free to give it as I see fit...
David's error is that he extrapolates that onto the more serious blogs and then brings in the journalism snipe. Vinny's error is he buys into David's trap.
He can't lose! Ssshhhh!!!!
And if I do happen to want to read about Paris Hilton, or other mindless stuff, I can be assured that it'll only arrive in the print press 3 days later (or on Sunday! in some cases).
The fact is, Bullard is right in some senses: Think about Livejournal and its throngs of idiots. I've read the blogs of people I went to university with... they post all manners of stupid things. They don't gun down their peers, but they partly fit Bullard's description. blogs.myspace.com will elicit even worse forms of online authors.
However, some bloggers are indeed trained writers, savvy business-people and just as qualified to put finger-to-keyboard as Mr. Bullard. How about I write a paragraph and sum up every print journalist on the planet? That can't be done, either.
http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/Columnists/DavidBu...
So tell me Bullard why do you have a blog now? Since us bedwetters who belong to the "lifes losers lounge" as you so nicely put it? Well welcome to the club. I look forward to your attempt at maintaining this blog. Next time do us all a favour and keep your mouth shut. Here is a quote I would like to share with you ....
"The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable." Sun Tzu, Art of War
Now I am navigating off this page to get back to work where I just got paid 25, 000 US $ to programme a few lines of code for a software company. Us bloggers are not brainless wankers as you think we are. If it were not for us you would not be blogging. Welcome Bully you get a platinum pass to our world.
After reading your lengthy comment on Bullard's blog, I came here to see if you were really as puffed-up with your own sense of self-importance as you appeared to be there. Yup, you are. I also noticed that you seem to try making yourself look smart and capable by criticising others and trying to make them look stupid and incompetent. Pretty transparent and a poor reflection on you and your intellectual honesty.
You have completely missed Bullard's points and are hanging your pride on having bested a strawman of your own making. Could you do as well addressing Bullard on his own points? Somehow I doubt it.
What Bullard has that you have yet to acquire is subtlety, focus, respect for skills of others, and the ability to make a point while eschewing the kind of self-aggrandizing that appears to be at the core of your style.
You have a lot yet to learn.
In case you think I don't remember you, if I remember correctly, you were the person who spoke at a conference in Joburg, got hold of a list of the speakers email addresses and spammed all of us (including myself) with commercial advertising for a friend of yours. I lashed back at you via email to that list (which includes some of the people who are blogging about BullardGate) for your blatent disregard for any form of etiquette and, along with Rob Stokes from Quirk, you labeled us "Online Bullies", proceeding to put up a hate page about myself and Rob on Blogspot. Anyways, the only reason I published your comment above is because I think that you have no credibility in the local blogosphere (and probably won't be able to acquire any with the comments that you make) and especially with the people that were on that mailing list.
As a second point, if you were unable to connect the dots and see that my comment on David Bullard's blog post was simply a Quasi-Bullardesque response to this entire issue, which he virtually begged for with his comment into today's Sunday Times:
"I was hoping for a general exchange of moderately insulting banter, but I have to say that the majority of the comments fall way short when it comes to intelligent invective. "
I basically gave him what he asked for, with the most humorous slant I could conjure up. If you honestly think that my response was serious as the emails I sent to you about spamming, then you need to spend more time socializing and less time blogging!
Anyone who has met me will tell you that I try to be jovial at all times and this entire BullardGate issue is just a whole lot of fun! Lighten up!
I think a lot of the indignant ranting that certain members of the blog community have responded with is perhaps a case of the shoe fitting a little too uncomfortably well :)