<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wherefore This Sphere of Blog?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/07/16/wherefore-this-sphere-of-blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/07/16/wherefore-this-sphere-of-blog/</link>
	<description>Free Minds, Free Markets, Free Booze</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:08:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Vincent</title>
		<link>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/07/16/wherefore-this-sphere-of-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-100775</link>
		<dc:creator>Vincent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:04:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/07/16/wherefore-this-sphere-of-blog/#comment-100775</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Is the blogosphere a wasteland of vapid web DJ’s, a form of conversation or a powerful tool for advocacy journalism?&lt;/i&gt;

All three, of course, and it just depends on the blog. There&#039;s so much diversity among blogs, I can&#039;t see how it&#039;s even useful to treat them as one thing. How do you compare, for instance, a site like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dailykos.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daily Kos&lt;/a&gt;, which is basically a community driven activist site with something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.instapundit.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Instapundit&lt;/a&gt;, which is basically Glenn Reynolds dishing out links with a sentence or two of commentary? And how do those compare with sites like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.plastic.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Plastic&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slashdot.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slashdot&lt;/a&gt;, which are sort of like massive group blogs with editors picking the best user-submitted stories to post?

I agree with you that the &quot;investigative&quot; blogger is probably the most intriguing and potentially influential. Writers like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaeltotten.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Totten&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://michaelyon-online.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Yon&lt;/a&gt; have really helped my understanding of what&#039;s going on in Iraq. Of course, not everyone can afford to just fly to Iraq or Kosovo to do some reporting, but stuff like your Pacifica coverage brought a lot of local attention to an issue that might not have made the editor&#039;s cut at the Register Guard or something.

So I guess you could say that I mostly disagree with the Quark Soup blogger. Sure there&#039;s a lot of terrible blogs. But there&#039;s a lot of great ones, too. It&#039;s a medium that&#039;s still stabilizing. Pining for the halcyon days of blogging (2003 - 2004) seems a bit silly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Is the blogosphere a wasteland of vapid web DJ’s, a form of conversation or a powerful tool for advocacy journalism?</i></p>
<p>All three, of course, and it just depends on the blog. There&#8217;s so much diversity among blogs, I can&#8217;t see how it&#8217;s even useful to treat them as one thing. How do you compare, for instance, a site like <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/" rel="nofollow">Daily Kos</a>, which is basically a community driven activist site with something like <a href="http://www.instapundit.com/" rel="nofollow">Instapundit</a>, which is basically Glenn Reynolds dishing out links with a sentence or two of commentary? And how do those compare with sites like <a href="http://www.plastic.com/" rel="nofollow">Plastic</a> or <a href="http://www.slashdot.org/" rel="nofollow">Slashdot</a>, which are sort of like massive group blogs with editors picking the best user-submitted stories to post?</p>
<p>I agree with you that the &#8220;investigative&#8221; blogger is probably the most intriguing and potentially influential. Writers like <a href="http://www.michaeltotten.com/" rel="nofollow">Michael Totten</a> and <a href="http://michaelyon-online.com/" rel="nofollow">Michael Yon</a> have really helped my understanding of what&#8217;s going on in Iraq. Of course, not everyone can afford to just fly to Iraq or Kosovo to do some reporting, but stuff like your Pacifica coverage brought a lot of local attention to an issue that might not have made the editor&#8217;s cut at the Register Guard or something.</p>
<p>So I guess you could say that I mostly disagree with the Quark Soup blogger. Sure there&#8217;s a lot of terrible blogs. But there&#8217;s a lot of great ones, too. It&#8217;s a medium that&#8217;s still stabilizing. Pining for the halcyon days of blogging (2003 &#8211; 2004) seems a bit silly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
