Friday, August 08, 2003
Rush Vs Blogs?-I've got the day off, so to speak. I just had one of my wisdom teeth pulled this morning, so if what I say lacks wisdom, I can take that as an excuse. Lileks does what I was tempted to do the other day-fisk this The Hill piece unfavorably comparing blogs to Rush. He does the fisking better than I, as usual. A few quick notes on the piece. Does the average blogger do as much pre-blog research as Rush does pre-show? No. However, the political bloggers typically give the news a read-over and blog on what interest them. However, the strength of blogs is their number and diversity of knowledge. We've got lawyers, economists, scientists, professors and political aides in the mix that has a broader knowledge base than Rush has in his offices. Do we have the audience that Rush has? No one does. Does The Hill have more readers than the Washington Post? No, but both political blogs and The Hill serve a comparable purpose, to provide information and analysis to political geeks. What we lack in reach, we'll make up in caliber of audience. The big political journals only have readership in the low six figures (if that), yet that small audience carries the message to a larger populous. As we as funny as Rush? Some of us are in that ballpark. As a textual medium, we lack the tone of voice and ability to do imitations that radio gives. However, given the limitations of print, many of the good political bloggers can match wits with Rush without being spotted too many points; if he tied half his brain behind his back with bloggers, he'd be toast. Blogs aren't designed to be multi-media extravaganzas; the occasion picture may show up, but multimedia isn't the blog game. No, we're not Rush. But collectively, we might be the National Review and New Republic combined.
Comments: Post a Comment