On Partsch’s “Unbounded Misrepresentation”
It was far too obvious that this article was certianly against blogging. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with specific parts of this article. As was quite simply stated, institution journalism is based on a collective view or a sponsored view by the owner or investers. The article went on to state that blogs are the views of their writers individually though I noticed that the article used “her” as the pronoun for the writer of a blog. While that may not be important, it stood out to me as I was reading. I noticed that the writer was being rather defensive of editorials and that blogging is of mere amateurs playing around with things they should be much like old nobility noticing peasants voicing an opinion of their own. I disagreed mainly with this overall opinion that blogs are like voices of people who do not matter or rather that the voice of the editorial should be more powerfull than that of the bloggers.
I completely agree with you on this topic. I do not believe that the editorial voice should overpower the people’s. You stated this very well! Better than i could have!
I agree with your comments on the Partsch article. The author’s tone was a bit of a turn-off in that he was too critical of bloggers. I find that some blogs give valuable insight into an issue despite the fact that the information may be coming from amateurs.
I agreed with the article. Blogging does do some good. but editorials should be stronger than bloggers. They have more of the facts, and they have to separate their opinions from the facts. Bloggers are unreliable and often biased because a blog is more personal.