There was an opinion article in the WSJ today by Joseph Rago letting us know what he thinks of blogs in general. (Hat tip Michelle Malkin)
I think it is just another anti-blog screed by a MSM elitist. His main objection is to what he percieves as the lack of quality on blogs. Sure some blogs are terrible. So what? So are some newspapers. The idea that people shouldn't be listened to because their "quality" doesn't meet certain standards is an unAmerican idea. Besides, what standards and devised by whom? I think we know the answer to that.
He spends one paragraph criticizing liberal blogs and the rest of the article critizing everyone else, obviously his idea of "quality" balance.
As I read the rant I got the impression he was litterally admiting that the MSM isn't intended to be read by the "mediocre masses" as he put it here:
"People also like validation of what they already believe; the Internet, like all free markets, has a way of gratifying the mediocrity of the masses."
I can't think of a more elitist attitude than that. Does this mean that the WSJ has no desire to communicate with the "mediocre masses"?
My only response to Mr. Rago would be:
"Sir: Your denigration of the blogosphere is off the mark. The internet has given the people something your entrenched media cannot, the freedom to say what they want and be heard by somone. You can't do it because you are not big enough and I think that might be one of the straws in your craw.
There are plenty of quality blogs out there and you should be extolling those not denigrating them. Do I hold up a copy of a sleeze paper as representitive of the WSJ? Of course not and you shouldn't indulge in that kind of package dealing either.
The bottom line sir is that for the most part, Americans understand that you work for a corporation which is in business to make money. In this respect you are no different than General Motors or Exxon Mobil. Americans understand this and that is why they properly refer to you as an opinion editor and not a truth editor."