Looking back over what I've written is a depressing experience
- there's a few half decent posts and I know I can pull a half-decent paragraph
or two together but by the standards I set myself (however ludicrously high they
may have been) I haven't succeeded. What's more the medium itself isn't what I
envisaged it to be - the hype surrounding blogs is all about an alternative
media, the democratisation of journalism and the 'voice' of the ordinary people.
But bloggers aren't ordinary people - most of them, like me, are political nerds
or obsessives who get off on the idea of interacting with like-minded people.
Looking back over the six months or so I've been doing this the posts that have
generated the most comments are those that deal directly with blogging itself
(or comments from mainstream pundits on blogging). I've already acknowledged
that my writing isn't a fraction of what I wanted it to be but there's no reason
to think it's any better or worse when I write about blogging. So the fact that
the topic that generates most interaction is blogging itself tells you something
about the medium - most of us read blogs to see if anyone has read our blogs,
given us a link or has any interesting widget in their sidebar that we could
pinch. Comments are used rarely to advance genuine debate or discussion - simply
to say ' hey, here's what I think and I have a blog too'. It's all about the
traffic no matter what anyone tells you.
You can read Cassilis's full explanation for giving up blogging HERE. Each to his own, and all that, but is he right? Has blogging failed to live up to its potential in this country? Are we all self obsessed and unwilling to'advance genuine debate'? Answers on a postcard please. Meanwhile, I'm off to give a little talk to business people over breakfast on the issue of 'trust'. The things I do to earn a crust...