Comments:Andrew Marr angers bloggers, describing them as 'inadequate, pimpled and single'
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Funny response||1||10:31, 16 October 2010|
|Irony, it's like goldy, or bronzy, but worth less||0||21:49, 13 October 2010|
|Comments from feedback form - "Well, like the MSM there are g..."||0||09:46, 12 October 2010|
|Comments from feedback form - "I do not 'Blog', though I read..."||1||09:25, 12 October 2010|
|There are indeed thoughtless posters, but...||0||06:52, 12 October 2010|
Ah, Andy, in your cushy job, with your top tier education. Journalism is a craft. When did you last pound the pavement, fish for information via social engineering, or sit down with some politico having done all your own research?
Undoubtedly, the majority of bloggers are empty vessels - making the most noise. But, you seriously insult people who hone their writing skills, learn social engineering, library research, management of Freedom of Information requests, and sundry other skills.
Keep your powder dry, and if you must rant, target the odious unnews of the Murdoch empire.
Well, like the MSM there are good blogs and bad blogs. Some of the good really aid debate and provide a forum for people with specialist knowledge to contribute. I spend more time reading blogs than I do the combined output of Andrew Marr, his wife and his mistress.
I do not 'Blog', though I read several. There are many thousands I do not read, and some are futile expressions of ignorance, perhaps that sounds a little 'Marr-ish'. But for one who is a recognised figure as Andrew Marr is, to speak so scathingly of those he has probably never met, is abuse at a juvenile level. There is much to be learned from the internet and its bloggers, and much that will never be published in the main stream media - they dare not. The MSM will only ever give you what will sell their products, and that is biased, as appears Andrew Marr.
Having not heard the interview I can't be certain but I'm sure, not that you have suggested it, that it wasn't a foaming at the mouth rant (not least since that would be somewhat ironic). The words in the article that grabbed me the most was 'citizen journalism'. The amount of time BBC (and other) newscasters spend rifling through Emails and flicking through blurry pictures sent in by viewers is hugely disproportionate to the value that these 'right place at right time' mobile phone images or opinions offer. I can imagine that an excellent journalist such as Marr must get irritated that the viewer is given the impression that off the cuff comments or unresearched views are given the same forum as people such as himself (this is regularly satirised by the brilliant Mitchell and Webb; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnd5ilKx2Y).
Wikinews is the ideal forum for citizen journalism (assuming some columnist arent actual journalists anyway) since it has a screening process to filter out hate filled crap but retains the benefits of blogging; a different viewpoint, news that channels dont think is worth reporting or doesn't fit their agenda.
I find that, the more technically difficult it is for people to comment in an online medium, the more intelligent discussion you find there.
Kathleen Seidel, a blogger and parent of an autistic son, has exposed fraudulent autism therapies that at the time enjoyed widespread popularity in the media. The Chicago Tribune has only recently caught up with some of the things that she exposed years back.