I notice via the Devil’s kitchen and the Ministry of Truth, that Nick Cohen is to be added to the list of fatuous newspaper columnists who regards bloggers as a threat to their cushy little jobs. There is, perhaps, an element of truth in their concern, but not for the reasons they cite. As Unity points out, bloggers are not lining up to become columnists. As I have pointed out (repeatedly) blogging is more akin to a conversation than it is to a newspaper column. It is the redundancy of the professional columnist as they cease to be relevant that is more likely to be the outcome rather than swathes of bloggers stealing their jobs.
It takes a degree of chutzpah to infer as Cohen and Kamm before him have, that opinion should be rationed; metered out by those who are authorised to have them.
Bryan Appleyard of the Sunday Times and Andrew Keen, author of the forthcoming The Cult of the Amateur, both argue that the web destroys culture because when editing goes and every opinion becomes equally valid, anyone who tries to distinguish between Shakespeare and a fool is dismissed as a bow-tied dinosaur.
That bloggers are daring to tread on their turf is the inference; and, which is more, to dare to express unregulated, unedited opinion. How dare we! Well, chaps, I have news for you. Opinions are like arseholes…
Expressing opinion, openly and freely is the mark of a free, liberal democracy. This is clearly something that the arrogant self-important newspaper columnists do not wish to see. The proles daring to have opinions really isn’t on. Worse, the proles having the effrontery to publish those opinions, whatever next? And, frankly, who the hell is Cohen to decide what opinion is more or less valid than another? When it comes to sheer effrontery, these people are right at the top of the pile.
Unity makes a valid point, one missed in previous discussions on this, that the likes of Cohen and Kamm are, themselves, amateurs.
And therein lies the problem. Believing themselves to be experts in the art of writing, the professional columnist also – and frequently without merit – comes to believe themselves to be, also, experts in whatever subject it is they happen choose to write about on any given occasion, irrespective of whether they possess any real or substantive expertise in that specific field.
Indeed, unlike the specialists who report politics, technology, transport, law et al, they are the typical jack of all trades and master of none. When I write about railway operations or training or motorcycling, I do so from the position of occupational expert as I have earned a living in each of these fields. Consequently, I know what I am talking about when I write about them. I am also sufficiently knowledgeable to realise that there may be among my readers people more knowledgeable than myself. This is something that Unity points out:
The sin of journalistic hubris is much less prevalent amongst specialist commentators who write, in the main, for a specialist and often technical audience, and who remain, therefore, fully aware that those they are addressing as at least their equals, if not betters, in terms of expertise.
That is one reason why comments are so useful; it allows for instant correction of errors of fact. Incidentally, I am occasionally paid for my efforts, yet I do not consider myself a professional writer, nor do I seek to unseat the likes of Cohen and Kamm. Why would I? Who are they that I would want to take over their roles? Why compete with a nobody who has nothing of importance to say?
The Cohens and Kamms of this world, inflated by their outsized egos do nothing other than issue forth their opinions. I am perfectly capable of forming one of those for myself without the guidance of Nick Cohen or Oliver Kamm. True, they are much like many bloggers in that respect; as I said, opinions are like arseholes, which pretty much sums up Cohen and Kamm. The difference is that many bloggers talk about subjects dear to them and may well be experts in their chosen field; unlike Cohen and Kamm who appear to be expert in hot air.
Given the choice, would I read a blogger who is articulate, informed, informative and entertaining or do I read a bumptious, arrogant, ill-informed twat? No contest, really…
Hear hear.
Furthermore, even before the advent of the blog, professional commentators ought to have expected to read critically by people waving actual newspapers.
The real problem that Cohen et al have is that, previously, they were blissfully unaware of this fact – that their audiences did not take their every word as gospel – blogs allow them to see that they don’t always have the sole correct position on any topic and that – for a lefty especially – is distinctly uncomfortable…