I don’t get this hard copy/web-blog debate.
I really don’t.
Ted Olsen of Christianity Today says that there were bloggers that took exception to his print column on blogs.
Several Christian bloggers took issue with the initial entry of Weblog in Print, Christianity Today’s effort to put the spirit of blogging on paper. No big surprise there: as the column noted, the blogging community likes nothing more than critiquing articles about blogging. The main critique of the column was that it didn’t mention this or that blog.
How profoundly short sighted, and in the critique below, rather misinformed.
We bloggers can and should be encouraging print journalists to write about web-blogs. I may not agree with Ted Olsen on all his views on blogging, but I certainly commend him for reaching out to the print audience, and I’ve encouraged him to do so. I’ve also encouraged him to notice international blogs. I suspect I’m not the only one encouraging him in these areas.
Olsen blogs. We could be saying thank you, not heading this way:
In a piece appearing to announce the grudging “acceptance” of blogs at Christianity Today, author Ted Olsen insults current bloggers, while expressing his ignorance of the form. He’s apparently relying on some four-year-old information, which makes no sense in the blogsphere, since so much has changed. Claiming that there’s nothing much worthwhile at Blogs4God (could he have possibly looked at all 969 blogs?) makes me wonder if he’s only trying to make everybody else look bad so he won’t have to work so hard, or something. ?????
I wish I knew what criteria he used to determine the “worth” of a blog.
This print/blog/cat-post debate is exclusively American.
Ted Olsen highlighted international blogs in his first column.
Now he is trying to point his detractors to US religion critic blogs.
Blogs4God is one portal run by one American guy, and is hardly the be all to end all. The owner runs it as the owner sees fit.
Olsen had to start his print column somewhere.
Olsen came to this blog and dialogued with readers from a well informed standpoint.
To WOLves: I’ve looked at those god-blogs. I’ve looked at more than those god-blogs. Others have also. I think Olsen read the demographic work I posted. He reads blogs. He took the title “new kids on the blog” from a well known blog-founder from Australia. I think Olsen knows the US portal wouldn’t exist without Martin Roth’s generosity. This may be ancient history in cyber time, but it puts comments in perspective.
Many good bloggers may decide not to list anywhere.
If you’d like/want other god-blog portals read the god-blog demographics posts.
Published 4 years, 9 months ago“May a million thoughtful bloggers bloom to pick up the slack.”
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Lots of good points BD. As to Ted’s “ignorance of the form”, I think he’s been blogging since about 1999. Christianity Today must be the first print magazine to have a reglular weblog.
According to Ted Olsen, Ted Olsen has been blogging since November 1999.
I wonder if any ‘print only readers’ had any complaints?
And he linked to some of his critics in Weblog.
I think that’s fair blogging and not indicative of ‘ignorance of the form.’
Where is this ‘cat-blog’ thing coming from…Olsen had a zoo blog.:^)
I fail to see what value there is in singling out any group of bloggers and labelling them as not worthwhile. “There are not many worthwhile blogs at Blogs4God,” is what was said. It is not about leaving anyone out. It is about commenting on a specific group without letting readers know what the judging criteria are.
This is simply dishonest journalism, and cheats ALL readers, no matter what medium they are viewing at the time.
Christianity Today has archived Weblog and, in my dim recollection, that archive goes back to 1999. (The CT site is not responding right now, so I can’t confirm my memory.)
Also, as I read it, Ted does not single out any group of bloggers as “not worthwhile”. He says that the list of 917 Christian sites at Blogs4God is not exhaustive and there are worthwhile Christian blogs not yet catalogued at B4G. I can see, at a longer look, at the syntax of that paragraph, how readers might have interpreted it otherwise.
As for cat-blog, ne gives the example of how a cat-loving niece might now have a blog on cats to supplement her home page of cat pictures.
This is all from the print article, which I have in front of me. I don’t know if he added anything in CT Weblog.
Thanks Ian. I double checked. There is nothing like Trudy quoted in the current CT Weblog.:^)
Trudy: Here is the quote from the print peice:
…”Blogs4God.com lists 917 explicitly Chiristian sites, including some of the most popular (lists 7). But 917 is certainly an undercount, and Blogs4God does not yet list many worthwhile blogs such as (lists 2)”
My points stand.
Where is the ‘dishonest journalism?’
What readers are cheated?
How is a fact ‘judging’?
Many excellent blogs don’t list at that portal for a lot of reasons. (see demographic posts).
This is a non-debate for most of us. Blog on!
Indeed. Thanks, BD.
I appreciated Olsen’s attempt to draw attention to the world of blogging. But in his latest column he hightlights the blogs of CT writers who tend to write about their cats.
I know if that column was my first exposure to the idea of a “weblog” that I wouldn’t think it was a very serious medium and wouldn’t bother to explore it further. Perhaps there are a handful of people somewhere on the planet who enjoy reading the daily updates about another person’s cat but I don’t imagine the audience is very large.
JP:
Did the satire go over your head?
I think his cat theme was a subtle response to a critic. Maybe we’d have had to follow the train of blogs to get it?
We can’t all be significant American pundits, or, heaven help us,” the Christian Instapundit.”
The Pereus Study bears that out.
That column may well be many people’s ‘first exposure’ to blogs. Your site might be.
Who knows?
So?
People may think blogs may not be a serious medium because of Ted Olsen?
Are people that shallow and stupid, JP?:^)
I privately criticized the original article several weeks ago because it listed my site as one of the most popular on blogs4God! Heh!