David Shaw on Self-Important Ranters
Other bloggers have already commented on David Shaw’s rant against bloggers in the L.A. Times. But I couldn’t let this pass without comment:
But some bloggers are just self-important ranters who seem to wake up every morning convinced that the entire Free World awaits their opinions on any subject that’s popped into their heads since their last fevered post.
There is no doubt that this is true. There are literally millions of bloggers. So I’d be shocked if “some bloggers” (Shaw doesn’t name any specific ones) didn’t fit Shaw’s description.
What I found interesting is that Mr. Shaw’s comment also very neatly describes some editors at the L.A. Times. If you read their editorials on a regular basis, you quickly learn that, while they are sometimes quite thoughtful, they are frequently also shockingly uninformed.
In my view, this results directly from the fact that a small group of editors apparently feel that the world needs to hear their opinions on every imaginable topic — despite the fact that they are clearly not experts on most subjects, as they regularly demonstrate in shallow and inaccurate editorials.
Surely Shaw is aware of this. Yet, apparently more to vent his spleen than for any informative purpose, Shaw chooses to insult the medium of blogging for sins of which his own editors are at least as guilty.
[…] 1; for “blogger” and see how the quote sounds. I’ll start by altering a recent quote from David Shaw of the L.A. Times. I am changing one wor […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Suggestion for Mainstream Media Types Who Are Feeling Threatened By Blogs (0c6a63) — 2/24/2005 @ 3:01 pm[…] Jack Shafer whacks David Shaw. And deservedly so. I have whacked Shaw once or twice (or thrice) myself. But I am happy to see Shafer pile o […]
Patterico's Pontifications » A Good Whacking (0c6a63) — 3/29/2005 @ 7:14 amHow would Shaw rate Maureen Dowd then?
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 2/22/2005 @ 2:25 pmWith such a huge emphasis on all-important self-esteem from the left, I would have thought that he would encourage “self-important ranters.”
You aren’t trying to tell me that a liberal could be a hyprocrit, are you?
Confederate Yankee (77aa06) — 2/22/2005 @ 2:49 pmThe funny part is when a favorite blogger doesn’t post you see all sorts of comments all over demanding free ice cream.
Instapundit takes an hour off and the blogosphere stops. I’m still mad at Allah for forsaking me.
This nitwit is just jealous.
Veeshir (1ad875) — 2/22/2005 @ 3:02 pmIt seems to me he had a specific blog in mind.
Rod Stanton (8d1477) — 2/22/2005 @ 3:33 pmBut some news opinion journalists are just self-important ranters who seem to wake up every morning convinced that the entire Free World awaits their opinions on any subject that’s popped into their heads since their last fevered opinion column.
There is no doubt that this is true. There are literally thousands of news journalists. So I’d be shocked if “some news journalists” also didn’t fit Shaw’s description.
Roberto (fc9107) — 2/22/2005 @ 6:40 pmEven more laughable is the fact that the editors have an expected audience whereas bloggers have none. Bloggers earn their audience by compelling writing. The Times’ editors are given their audience by their progenitors, who built their audience for them.
antimedia (ab4ba4) — 2/22/2005 @ 7:49 pmKevin Murphy (#1) asks an excellent question…
Gee, I wonder if Dowd or Shaw have as many readers as Patterico or Reynolds?
russ (76f542) — 2/23/2005 @ 5:05 amLet’s not get carried away. They certainly have way more readers than *I* have.
Patterico (756436) — 2/23/2005 @ 7:06 amSpeaking of self-important ranters…
…does our bloghost even bother fisking Robert Scheer, or is that too much like wrestling with a pig?
Apropos of Scheer, who was it who said: “Every word of his is a lie, including “and” and “the”.”?
–furious
furious (3681f5) — 2/23/2005 @ 6:53 pm