I rarely read
Gawker anymore, for reasons I'll discuss in the next paragraph, but stopping by there this morning and finding
this post on a recent lashing out against blogs in Big Media really left me scratching my head. Are we on the verge of seeing blogs become passe, or is this Gawker's way of telling us that these articles are ludicrous? I'm not entirely sure, but either way, I have a rebuttal.
Blogs like those in Gawker Media embrace what blogs "should be," but, in my opinion, they try to do it too hard. The rogue aspect of citizen-driven journalism essentially builds in the snarky tone of most blogs, but Gawker bloggers go out there and try to find a way to snark about the snark, or something like that. Weblogging (who ever thought that term would seem archaic?) started out as a way for people to point out interesting newsbits and other whatnots that were floating around the Interwebs. Gawker and sites like it turned that into something akin to reporting on the news, and their sites have even broken stories. This isn't a bad thing in most cases - many blogs that do this are extremely interesting - but in a way, they have become closer to the establishment than they started out, more holding the hand that feeds them than biting it.
Establishment blogging is not a good thing. Newspapers assigning reporters to write like bloggers is an important development, because it quickens the release of news to the general public, but that river flows only one way. Bloggers aren't newspaper reporters, even if they have that job title part-time. We are commentators. We are reactionaries. Blogging-for-profit may die, as one of the articles that the Gawker post points out, but there will always be people monitoring the news, or, as I do, offering commentary online.
That is, unless somebody wants to pay me for my movie reviews.