HERE’S a provoking question posed by an article on Guardian Unlimited.
This question is a result of an observation Robert Niles, the editor of the Online Journalism Review, which found that journalists often see bloggers “feeding” off the work of newspapers and magazines since they just serve as a “global echo chamber.”
Here’s an excerpt:
Are bloggers parasites? That’s the question of the day in the navel-gazing world of the blogosphere. Robert Niles, the editor of the Online Journalism Review, recently decried what he sees as a tendency by journalists to characterise blogs as “a ‘parasitic’ medium” that feeds off the work of traditional newspapers and magazines. He calls the charge “a poorly informed insult of many hard-working Web publishers who are doing fresh, informative and original work.”
Maybe so, but Niles’s protestations notwithstanding, blogs are largely parasitic. Yes, a handful of bloggers do original reporting, usually on highly specialised topics, but most simply react to the news of the day. The blogosphere, as others have pointed out, acts as a kind of global echo chamber. An idea gets swatted around like a ping-pong ball for a few hours until a fresh one takes its place.
But is that really so bad? I used to think of blogging’s reactive nature as a flaw in the medium. I’ve changed my mind, though. I’ve come to believe that being a literary parasite is no bad thing. I’d argue, in fact, that parasitism is blogging’s most distinctive and probably its most valuable feature.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:37 am
for me, blogs are meant to be opinionated and personal. it doesnt have to be as formal as how a journalist would write a story. thats what makes blogging special, and that is where the borderline between being a blogger and being a journalist begins. now, bloggers not need to be always up for something fresh, it is how you express yourself or how you see things is what is important. if there is something new or imaginative that comes to mind, give credit to yourself… but when it is something that you have heard from or seen before, give credit for whom credit is due, like the rule in plagiarism. however, with all the influences we get, we do not really keep track of where we get all these ideas. that is where the problem lies. sometimes, we just get mixed up with all the ideas that we cannot segregate it properly anymore. that is where “recycling” may come. but come to think of it, dont we just agree or disagree with a lot of stuff that we write on our blogs? now that goes back to being opinionated… =o)
March 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
i think “Parasitic blogging” can work both ways: it can discourage bloggers from coming up with original content and just rely on cutting / pasting entries and posting a reaction or it can spur a healthy and constructive discussion of issues around us.
i think it’s that absolute rule you get to exercise over a personal blog that makes it so appealing to a lot of people. I guess as long as you don’t plagiarize, you can write about anything you want because it’s your turf.
If a blogger seems to be a parasite, we always have a choice not to read his blog and click somewhere else.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Parasite in a positive way. As Nicholas Charr put it
“So if someone wants to call my blog parasitic, or even bacterial, that’s fine with me. I’ll consider it not an insult, but a compliment.”
March 16th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Totally agree!
There’s a difference between re-blogging or splogging and plain blogging about a story (whether the story originated from traditional media or others).
Some bloggers try to come up with their own material (as to news blogs) that some news outfit or journalist try to scan blogsites for some scoops.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I guess to some extent he’s right. The chances of getting original content in a blog is often very slim. I mean, when was the list time you blogged while thinking “this information can’t be seen elsewhere so I have to share this to others”?
Othertimes we’re just recycling.