Blog Good Vs Bad

As time goes on humanity finds the need to evolve. The subject must prone to change is writing. From the printing press until today's blog system, people continue to find new ways to express themselves. However there are those who oppose change. Blogs are a revolutionizing new idea that threatens to "destroy journalism" to some, while to others it shows a bright bastion of hope for others. The fact is that blogging is a new form of art. It allows any writer to express themselves freely on whatever subject they wish without having a limit to what they can write. People oppose it simply oppose it because they are afraid that the "good old newspaper" will become extinct because of it. They can't see how this idea benefits many.

Blogs are taking away from the true essence of journalism according to Michael Scube of the Los Angeles Times. Scubes addresses the positives of blogs in his article stating that "bloggers have all the liberties of a traditional journalist but few of the obligations." This is accurate. Bloggers only need to register a blog on sites like blogger or blogspot. Within a few minutes they have a free page that they can write whatever pleases them on. However Scubes goes on to say that blogs do not report and inform the public as much as main stream media. He states that stories demand time, determination, and research, all of which a blog lack. Finally, Scubes attempts to discredit all bloggers as less than amateur by stating that no real writer would write for free. All of this could not be further from the truth.

Blogs are a revolutionary idea with no visible flaws. Andrew Sullivan depicts blogs as the future of journalism and the spark of a whole new perspective on writing. Unlike Scubes, he shows the reader how beneficial blogs are. He contradicts Scubes by saying that people no longer respect newspapers and magazine's "authority" because they are coming to a realization now - the writers of these articles are no more than regular people. In addition, a reporter tells you information and expects you take it as truth because they have this "commanding authority" because they are the media. With a blog, the writer earns your respect as Sullivan states. He doesn't take it for granted. This allows the reader to trust more easily the information being fed to them. The final point Sullivan makes in his argument is that ANY writer can do this and that it makes their lives so much easier. It is true that the blogosphere doesn't choose who can write a blog and there will be those who may be weak, unreliable writers as Scubes claims. However there are also many gifted writers who are looking to this as a way to voice what interests them for free without a publisher or editor impeding their writing.

One writer claims that this idea is going to destroy the value of journalism while the other strongly believes it will strengthen it. What can be said for certain is that every writer is thinking of it while many are actually using it. It does seem that it gives them more freedom as Sullivan states. There may be downsides as Scubes suspects but to go as far as to say they are completely taking away from what real writing is and that bloggers lack the skills of a reporter is drastic. Only time will tell how Blogs will have an effect of the media and writing.