The blogosphere is actually governed by narrow rules, says Jeremy Beer, and yet that makes it rare for “anyone to write anything ‘original’ at all.” As an example, I included an on-line case between a blogger at the National Review Online named Ed Whelan and a (formerly) pseudonymous blogger at Obsidian Wings named John Blevins:
‘While the blogosphere is generally considered a free-for-all medium where any topic or opinion is fair game, it’s actually governed by narrow rules, Jeremy Beer writes on Front Porch Republic. “It is uncommon for someone to write a piece about something that is not immediately pertinent to the contemporary ‘conversation’—as defined by the blogosphere,” he writes. That makes it rare for “anyone to write anything ‘original’ at all.”
So who decides the shape of the blog “conversation”? Linkability is a major factor. Things that can be linked to get coverage, and things that can’t be—like text from books and topics without much web presence—do not. This means that “the real, metaphysical existences of some things without digital lives become rather more tenuous,” Beer writes.
Source: Front Porch Republic
‘Over the weekend, there was a bit of an online kerfuffle between a (formerly) pseudonymous blogger at Obsidian Wings named John Blevins (who wrote under the nom de plume “Publius”) and a blogger at the National Review Online named Ed Whelan. Most of you probably missed this, because you spent your weekend “living your lives,” like citizens who aren’t “sad” or “cripplingly lacking in social skills.”
‘Well, this whole big plate of hot mess went down between these two legal affairs bloggers, and the whole thing ended with the masked blogger getting unmasked, which is a violation of the “bro code” or something.’ Source: The Huffington Post