I Got Posted 15

This was a first for me in illustrating for the National Post – I did the illo without reading the article until the paper came out this morning! I was just given a brief description of what the article was going to be about (hey in the newspaper biz everything's done at the last minute, right?) and away I went. I haven't had time to post a larger version on my portfolio site, but will try and do so within the next day or so.
Not one of my best illos, to be sure. Perhaps due to the content of the article. 'Cuz guess what the article is about? Yup, more blog-bashing. Sigh. The title of the article is Divided they blog, and is written by a fellow named Adam Radwanski.
Here's the gist of the piece. According to Radwanski, blogs suck at political discourse, because there is no true debate, just right-wing and left-wing blogs who are simply preaching to the converted. Hence my illo of the blogger on his soapbox, giving his blogging sermon on the mount. Here's some of the article:
The blogosphere is good for music and trading notes on pop culture. It can be great for sports commentary. It's a way to pass time for those interested in reading the mundane details of strangers' personal lives.
But what it is absolutely lousy for is political debate – mostly because what it encourages is not debate at all, so much as support groups in which the converted preach to one another about the evils of some dark and mysterious enemy. Those frequenting blogs don't learn much and their views are rarely challenged. What they get out of the experience is having their own views reinforced over and over again, until even relative moderates are converted into hard-liners.
For simple reasons of geography, other outlets cannot do that. A newspaper can be liberal or conservative in its editorial stance, but there simply aren't enough ideologues in any given city for it to be sustainable as a one-sided pamphlet. And with the broad base of viewers needed to draw in advertisers, the same usually goes for TV networks.
A Web site, however, is a different matter entirely. With little or no overhead and no geographic restrictions, it can be successfull just by cobbling together a few thousand fans somewhere within a country's borders.
The result is that opinionated Americans no longer have to suffer the ordeal of encountering views they disagree with. Instead, they can simply go online and find an endless supply of writers eager to tell them that they're right and everyone else is wrong.
Sigh... where to start with this? Hmmmm. Well, first off, it's difficult for me to comment in any great detail about political blogs because I don't read enough of them to create a really well-informed opinion. I'd love to know how many political blogs this guy read before he wrote the article. I will admit, that based on the very few political blogs I have encountered, that there does seem to exist this divided group of right and left-wing blogs, and it's not very easy for the twain to meet and discuss matters with any amount of civility. (In my limited experience, the blogs that are really intolerant of dissenting opinion tend to be the right-wing blogs).
But let's face it. These people and their differing views would exist with or without blogs. The divisivness we encounter in the world of political opinion has had a strong life of its own, long before political blogs began to grow in number and popularity. The beauty (or ugly truth?) of blogs is that we can all get a very clear and for the most part unedited perspective of what people are really thinking all across the world. Can we get such diversity of opinion in newspapers and television? Of course not. Editors choose what articles are written, as well as what letters to the editor get printed in the paper, based on their own biases, as well as what their advertisers want in there. And how many letters to the editor get printed in a newspaper in response to an article? Three if you're lucky? How broad of a perspective is that? And television? Oh pulease. What variety exists there? A few large corporations own most TV stations and newspapers, and every word that comes out of that idiot box is based on what those large corporations want to be said. But go on a right or left-wing blog (or any kind of bloody blog for that matter) and you can sometimes read hundreds of unedited comments of people from all walks of life. You are getting a real-time barometer of human thought, be it good, bad, or just really damn ugly and stupid. The opinions you read are unfiltered, and unbeholden to any advertising company or large corporation.
It boggles my mind this endless criticism of blogs from the print people. Be it political blogs, or personal blogs or creative blogs they just don't get it. It all sucks as far as they're concerned. Yes, there is good content, and there is bad content. But these print people fail to see (or simply choose not to see) how blogs are a phenomenal new and dynamic conduit for communication, and yes, for misunderstanding, too. But the fact is, with blogs we all are free to do either.
Before I go, I must leave you with an audio clip, created by the wonderful, delightful, funny, witty and just darn adorable Bookpuddle. He created this audio file a few months ago, in celebration of his one-year blog anniversary. His analysis of why he blogs, and the wonder of blogs is exactly how I feel, but have never been able to express so clearly and concisely. Click here, to listen to the audio post, and enjoy the warm and wonderful voice of Bookpuddle.






Does anyone remember