Subjective.
That's what the world is today. Freedom of speech encouraged boundary-less expression of opinions and beliefs. Consequently, like fungi after a brief rain, everything sprouts from everywhere.
Who are we to decide which ones are worthy of attention and which ones are not?
Who are we to tell which ones are crap and which ones are gold?
I came across this article talking about blogs today. The writer adopts a rather cynical, sarcastic, and arrogant tone which, by far, sort of irritated me a little. Not so much about her criticising the content found on the blogosphere, but rather her belittling the level of intelligence - and discretion - bloggers possess, and show, while they blog. She deemed articles - proses, rather - found on blogs as something unworthy to read because their authors take little notice of their audience, or how flaw-plagued the articles are in terms of sentence structure or grammar, or how biased and misleading the articles are, and how facts are bent and tweaked to the authors' liking to sort-of influence the masses.
If she is talking about certain blogs used by syndicates to spread extremist beliefs, then she's right. These blogs are propaganda, and yes, they do tweak and bend the facts, no a little but rather a great deal, to influence the masses to enemize certain groups of people.
While I agree to her statement, that to find a blog with substance amidst a vast number of blogs in the blogosphere is a difficult job, I do not - and will not - approve of her using the term "haystack" to describe the rest of the blogger population. A blog, when it was first founded, served as a tool to convey thoughts and messages of an individual. So what is so "haystack"-ey with people's emotions and plights, as they are published in blogs?
The author said she has always liked magazines, newspapers and other more
proper published articles, because they(the articles) were sent through rounds of auditting and quality control, so that those published are of substance. Well, I can't counter-argue that, of course. Articles in national papers and mainstream magazines are of course of remarkable quality.
But how do you defend those written in tabloids? In propaganda magazines?
Are the articles not tailor-made to convey a certain slanted message? Are the articles not of trivial content? Most importantly, were the articles not sent for auditting and 'quality control' prior to being published? How do you defend these, when you condemn articles in blogs for lack of substance?
And who are you to deem those written in blogs are not substantial? You mean others' life and their plight is not worth your interest and attention at all? You mean your life is so fulfilling, that everything others go through is simply too insignificant?
Who are YOU? Empathetic fellow?
My blog may just be another needle amidst a sea of similar looking pins - yes
similar looking pins, not
haystack - but this needle is fully functional. That is, to burst ego bubbles like yours. It may just be plain looking, but it is certainly not the rusted iron junk you perceive - and generalized - it to be.
