Okay, I am being a tad facetious, I admit. To deign to think there is such a thing as ‘weblog theory’ is basically self-parody, or at least wholly absurd. Yet, I found this analysis from Wired.com Adam Penenberg, in an article today titled Blogging Against Convention, to be quite incisive and on-point. It is an article about the effect bloggers may or may not have on the Democratic National Convention:
“Breaking news?” wrote wonkette in a recent e-mail to me. “ldkjflasjflkjsdlkfjlkdsjflksklfdfjkl Sorry, lost control of my hands as I was laughing too hard. Bloggers don’t really report to begin with: They filter, they analyze, they collect. Reporting is something you have to leave your laptop to do…. It’ll be a new experience for most of them (and me). Best-case scenario is that we make things more interesting by fucking it up somehow.” She hopes that bloggers’ presence will add spice to the convention, “but unless one of them gets molested by Rob Lowe, I don’t know if they will.”
The truth about blogs and bloggers is that they are parasitic to the mainstream media they love to hate. Without newspapers, websites, TV and radio to provide them with material to rip apart, many (if not most) blogs would simply not exist. Their motto could easily be: They report, I decide. In essence, bloggers are alphanumeric versions of those pedantic pundits populating cable news and talk radio. You know whom I mean.
As a result, Penenberg inadvertently defines what most blogs are about, and why they are not unique: most blogs recycle existing content and comment on it. This content is typically of a current events or news nature. If its not that it is the typical livejournal blog that goes something like this: OMG U GUYS ARE Gr8 i . Sure, they will offer ‘unvarnished, politically incorrect commentary,’ blah blah blah. Its preaching to the choir. The politically incorrect actively seek out like-minded invididuals, online or in real life. This won’t change anything. If I want honest, politically incorrect conversation, I’ll go to a smoke-filled bar, thank you. I have a low opinion of people who think they are ‘daring’ by making ‘edgy, non-pc’ comments online.
My conclusion is that, in a macro sense, blogs are culturally unimportant. Blogs merely parrot and redistribute information regarding the things that are culturally important: news, politics, religion, art, sports, technology, and so on. They are essentially personal journals made public. Which is why I don’t care to read %99.9 of all blogs.
Will sociologists, anthropologists and historians in the future look back to these blogs as a resource providing a nuanced and highly personalized look at Internet culture near the beginning? Maybe, but probably not. We are talking about information overload, a whole lot of text that will mean almost nothing out of context (assuming any of this is even still around in 100, if not 10 years. Note that most history texts tend to deal with major movers in religion, the arts, the sciences, and government. Scholarly work is typically more specific and often obscure, but still relevant in some larger context. Some idiot’s ramblings might be interesting, but the ramblings of 100 million idiots is impossible to sift through, so I imagine most researchers will just throw their hands up in disgust and reach for some old issues of the New York Times.
Of course, this mess is culturally significant to us. The technology being developed allows individuals to immediately share their opinions with the masses. In some fundamental way person to person and person to group communication is changing.
Though this is empowering, it is at the same time enervating. Would Martin Luther have caused such a dust-up when he posted the 99 theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg if everyone in the city had owned a printing press and posted their own crazy opinions all over the doors of the town? I highly doubt it. Its not easy being a radical when there are a thousand people just like you who blog with the same amount of piss and vinegar.
The great books and classic works of art that we admire today are the best of an era. We don’t see all the garbage that got produced that wasn’t as good and didn’t withstand the natural meta-filtration process that we call ‘time’. But natural limitations on publication such as wealth, resources, and political connections do not matter nearly as much due to the impact of technology. But my opinion and your opinion are drowned out and diluted by a cacophany of other voices. Its like involuntary censorship by flooding the market. As supply goes up, demand goes down.
Sure, occasionally a historian will translate a particular person’s diary, but only if that diary is entertaining and interesting. Nobody reads the stuff by Theoclus the Roman Pig Farmer from 200 A.D.- Yesterday: fed the pigs Today: fed the pigs Tomorrow: Lord willing, I will feed the pigs.
Well, I suppose masochistic grad students read that stuff.
Anyway my conclusion to this barely coherent ramble is this: the reason movies are culturally significant is because millions of people have seen the same films. As a result, they have a similar frame of reference, something in common with others. It takes a lot of ridiculous hurdles for a truly great film to be produced and become mass marketed. If there are great blogs, most people will never hear of them. Most blogs still feel like so much high school aged gossip.