Following in the footsteps of Greeley, Kent and Lane

There’s little risk here. Of the 200 million or so bloggers, there are only about 50 million blog readers (it is interesting, at least to me, that 62% of internet users report they don’t know what a blog is). It is so easy to write and cite to prove a point of view (especially if you unabashedly willing to use worldwide figures and compare to US figures or don’t mind that each citation has conflicting data, knowing that most people won’t bother to follow the links or the link’s links or read either.

Using a more appropriately “balanced” approach, so often found in “journalism,” would force me to present data that might confusingly conflict with my particular bias de jour (as well as type a lot more words, actually do research, read what I cite, and offer links to websites that, yikes, might disagree with me). For instance, the Wall Street Journal’s (not always a bastion of “balance”) point seems (“seems” is one of the clues that something might be a conclusion of the author while not necessarily something all people might find to be factual and probably isn’t) to be that no one knows what a blog is, who is a blogger, how many blog there are, how often they are published, how often they are visited by real people (could it be that the search engine robots are real people, too?) and if anyone actually reads anything before clicking to their next conclusion (SIC: snooze).

In spite of now clearly demonstrating (as opposed to proving) that no one will actually read this (one possible exception: bloggers who are reading blogs about blogging), it is incumbent upon me to acknowledge the skill and devotion to balanced reporting and grammar (at least, the New York Times Stylebook version) of journalists and newspaper professionals everywhere (except, and in particular, Fox News). Following in the footsteps of Greeley, Kent and Lane, these diligent, hardworking men and women of the Fourth Estate have given up so much (waistlines and potentially more lucrative careers, mostly) so we can be better informed and more effective citizens (and consumers). Thank you (and you know who you are) for so courageously laying the foundation of truth for which we bloggers everywhere now steal the bricks.

###
Lee Leslie

Lee Leslie

I’m just a plateaued-out plain person with too much time on his hands fighting the never ending lingual battle with windmills for truth, justice and the American way or something like that. Here are some reader comments on my writing: “Enough with the cynicism. One doesn’t have to be Pollyanna to reject the sky is falling fatalism of Lee Leslie’s posts.” “You moron.” “Again, another example of your simple-minded, scare-mongering, label-baiting method of argumentation that supports the angry left’s position.” “Ah, Lee, you traffic in the most predictable, hackneyed leftist rhetoric that brought us to the current state of political leadership.” “You negative SOB! You destroyed all my hope, aspiration, desperation, even.” “Don’t you LIBERALS realize what this COMMIE is talking about is SOCIALISM?!?!?!” “Thank you for wonderful nasty artful toxic antidote to this stupidity in the name of individual rights.” “I trust you meant “bastard” in the truest father-less sense of the word.” “That’s the first time I ran out of breath just from reading!” “You helped me hold my head a little higher today.” “Makes me cry every time I read it.” “Thanks for the article. I needed something to make me laugh this mourning.” “If it weren’t so sad I would laugh.” "... the man who for fun and personal growth (not to mention rage assuagion) can skin a whale of bullshit and rack all the meat (and rot) in the larder replete with charts and graphs and a kindness..."“Amen, brother.”