Comments on: Bloggers and Print http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2004/02/15/bloggers-and-print/ Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:17:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Gary Petersen http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2004/02/15/bloggers-and-print/#comment-1938 Gary Petersen Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:52:27 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=711#comment-1938 I privately criticized the original article several weeks ago because it listed my site as one of the most popular on blogs4God! Heh! I privately criticized the original article several weeks ago because it listed my site as one of the most popular on blogs4God! Heh!

]]> By: Bene Diction http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2004/02/15/bloggers-and-print/#comment-1937 Bene Diction Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:15:31 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=711#comment-1937 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?:^) 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?:^)

]]> By: Joe Carter http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2004/02/15/bloggers-and-print/#comment-1936 Joe Carter Tue, 17 Feb 2004 03:02:18 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=711#comment-1936 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. 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.

]]> By: Ted Olsen http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2004/02/15/bloggers-and-print/#comment-1935 Ted Olsen Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:48:05 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=711#comment-1935 Indeed. Thanks, BD. Indeed. Thanks, BD.

]]> By: Bene Diction http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2004/02/15/bloggers-and-print/#comment-1934 Bene Diction Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:23:56 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=711#comment-1934 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! 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!

]]> By: Ian McKenzie http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2004/02/15/bloggers-and-print/#comment-1933 Ian McKenzie Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:55:56 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=711#comment-1933 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. 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.

]]> By: Trudy W. Schuett http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2004/02/15/bloggers-and-print/#comment-1932 Trudy W. Schuett Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:02:15 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=711#comment-1932 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. 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.

]]> By: Bene Diction http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2004/02/15/bloggers-and-print/#comment-1931 Bene Diction Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:25:41 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=711#comment-1931 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.:^) 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.:^)

]]> By: Ian McKenzie http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2004/02/15/bloggers-and-print/#comment-1930 Ian McKenzie Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:54:03 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=711#comment-1930 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. 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.

]]>