February 23rd, 2006

Think Before You Blog


From an interview with Michael Wolff:

I’m not a fan of the idea that I should be a blogger, let me say that. One should probably be distrustful of blogs. One should probably be distrustful of most things one reads. The quicker the things that you read are written, the more you should be distrustful of them.

I find, as a general rule, that the less I think before I speak, the more likely I am to say something useless.

Is traditional journalism superior to blogging because it has a multi-step editorial process? Well, we’ve certainly seen Old Media make lot’s of mistakes, so it has no reason to feel superior.

But I do think that the easier it is to publish something, the greater the risk of publishing something useless. Now, many bloggers publish thought pieces that knock the socks off of Old Media articles. I’m talking here about risk.

I find it hard to do myself, but we should all try a little harder to think before we blog.

Comments (3 Responses so far)

  1. VC Olympics Bogs and the Website-less Be Afraid, But Not of MySpace The FCC is unAmerican Is Google Like a #1 Band on the Decline? Think Before You Blog Dealing With the Reader Stocks Backlash WSJ Moves a Step Closer to Laying Off the Presses Netherlands Crime Map Debuts I smell fear Blog

  2. A fair point as usual, Scott. Too bad you had to go and rely on Michael Wolff to help make your point for you, since he is a pompous moron. “The quicker the things that you read are written, the more you should be distrustful of them,” he says. Not always the case, I would argue. Sometimes the things that are written the fastest are the most true — and the things that people take a long time to write often turn out to be ponderous, turgid pieces of shite like Michael Wolff regularly writes for Vanity Fair.

  3. Mathew, if by “most true” you mean most likely to be a true reflection of raw emotion, then I would agree with you. What I write the fastest is most likely to reflect what I really feel, not necessarily what I really mean (or think).

    And who cares whether Michael Wolff is pompous or whatever — doesn’t mean he’s incapable of saying something interesting. If a source is unreliable, I might not trust their facts, but if it’s an interesting observation that makes me think, I’ll quote it.

Add Your Comment


Receive new posts by email