Me on Lawson on me
Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Now, it might be considered churlish and ungrateful - not to mention self-indulgent - to dissect what Mark Lawson had to say about political blogs in Saturday's Guardian considering I got a big fat link and a nice buzz out of it. But I figured I'm allowed a right of reply and, that said, a link in the Guardian doesn't confer an explosion in traffic that one might expect. Plus it's unlikely Lawson's going to be back this way again now he's met his deadline.

Despite what others have said, with a number very sweetly rallying to my defence (you know who you are, thank you), I don't think I came out of the piece too badly. And at least I avoided the epithet "pooterish" which I thought might be heading my way when I read the headline. The culture of blogging on the other hand took a (half-hearted) kicking.

The sad thing is, I'm otherwise a huge fan of Lawson and his writing. I hope this isn't how he produces his other stuff. Knowing the facts behind this story, you have to wonder.

It's obvious that Lawson found the Election Roundup Blog I contribute to (hence the "spittle-flecked hellholes" reference), burrowed down just one level of links (to the contributors' own sites), and I was fortunate to have the crack about Paxman near the top of my site which made good copy.

Pretty much all else that needs to be said about the article has already been said, here, here, here, here and here.

Nosemonkey, on the article, said:

Perhaps it's time for those of us bloggers who are actually professional writers in the real world to start up some kind of club to try and avoid being patronised by "proper" journalists... (Note to the traditional media - blogs are often first drafts, written in a rush and have not had the benefit of a sub-editor, proofreader or editor. They also may not always be representative of the blogger's usual standard of writing.)

I'd go further and say that there are also a bunch of bloggers out there - both left and right - that aren't professional writers - or at least journalists in the sense Lawson understands it - who put many a mainstream media figure to shame with their insight and skill with words.

This will sound like arse-kissing but there isn't a single person on my favourites list (down on the right of this page) who I don't think is a great writer and, in an ideal world, would be doing the likes of Lawson's job.

He gets paid to do what us bloggers do for little more than a delight in the use of language and ideas, an exchange of those ideas with kindred and not-so-kindred spirits, and another few hits on the visitor counter.

He's done us a disservice with his article. By "us" I (genuinely) mean the right-wing bloggers he blind-sided and the blogs of my favour who I regard superior to mine and whose owners missed out on a rosey glow last Saturday when Lawson plumped for Chicken Yoghurt after only two clicks.

UPDATE: "Everyone knows that opinions are like arseholes – they get red and inflamed when subjected to stimulation." More at Blood & Treasure.


1 Comments:

On April 26, 2005 11:05 PM, Anonymous kathyf said...

Welcome to the inequity that is the blogosphere. I've commented on the same phenomena from an American perspective.

However, having done a few laps in the publishing world, I have to say the same thing happens there. Poor writers get six figure advances, while talented writers languish unsold.

Excellent job on the Iraqi post up top, btw.  


Post a Comment




Links to this post:

Create a Link


Home