What is a blog?

Or, more specifically, what is my blog?

Blog is short for Web log. From the moment I discovered blogging — back in September 2004, I think it was — I’ve always thought of a blog as a sort of online journal. A place to write about the things I think and do. A way of recording them for the future and sharing them with others who might either think or do similar things or find my thoughts and actions interesting.

That’s what my blog is and always has been: an online journal.

Bloggers have been getting a lot of press lately. Especially political bloggers. I just read “Not Just Another Column on Blogging,” by Jack Shafer on Slate.com. In that piece, he discusses several things that have changed the newspaper industry. Blogging, he argues, is one of them.

From his article:

Michael Kinsley made me laugh a decade ago when he argued against Web populists replacing professional writers, saying that when he goes to a restaurant, he wants the chef to cook his entree, not the guy sitting at the next table. I’m not laughing anymore: When there are millions of aspiring chefs in the room willing to make your dinner for free, a least a hundred of them are likely to deal a good meal. Mainstream publishers no longer have a lock on the means of production, making the future of reading and viewing anybody’s game.

The problem, it seems, is finding the 100 capable of making a good meal. Fortunately, I don’t spend enough time surfing the Web to sample the available offerings. (And I hope you don’t, either. There are far better ways to waste time.)

Anyway, this isn’t me that he’s talking about. My blog may state political opinions, but it does not attempt to replace reporters, who I still try to trust to report the truth. Some of my blog entries are rehashings of the “truth” that I’ve heard or read, filtered through my brain, which includes personal experiences and preferences.

Again, from the top: my blog reports the things I think and do. It should not be used as a primary source of information for anything. (Does that sound like a legal disclaimer? Kind of eerie, if you ask me.)

Also, my blog has never been a way to gain popularity with readers or site visitors. In fact, some of my viewpoints are very unpopular with certain subsets of people. But this blog isn’t an entry in some kind of popularity contest. It’s my way to exercise the free speech I’m granted in the U.S. Consitution. (The same Constitution that has been in the news a lot lately.)

I’m also not trying to convince people who don’t agree with me on issues to agree with me. I hope that people will think about the things I write here, even when they don’t agree with me. After all, I think about most things I hear and read. That’s how my opinions come about. I don’t just echo the sentiments of others.

(I also hope that people think. Period. I’m so tired of talking to people who echo the thoughts of others.)

In general, I don’t care if others agree or disagree with me. I’d love to read (and share) rational, well-thought-out arguments from both sides. That’s what the Comments links are for. (Duh.) Just don’t get nasty. Nasty doesn’t get deleted. Nasty remains online to show the world just how immature some people can be.

Anyway, this entry was brought about primarily by reading Mr. Shafer’s article today and thinking about how my blog doesn’t fit into what is quickly becoming the definition of a blog: an amateur’s attempt at serious journalism.

This isn’t journalism. It’s my diary. I just don’t keep it locked up.

And heck, no one is forcing you to read it.

AlwaysOn

I get a new print magazine about Internet technology when Internet technology is putting print publications out of business.

I got it in the mail yesterday. The regular mail. The kind with the mail truck that puts stuff in my mailbox up on the corner. I like to think of it as analog mail.

The magazine is called AlwaysOn with the subtitles “the insider’s network” and “The blogozine on innovation.” Huh? The cover led me to believe that they’d collected a bunch of blog entries about technology, printed them up on slick paper, threw a few ads in to pay the bills, and mailed them out to people they thought might be stupid enough to buy in at the hefty price of $39 for four issues a year.

Well, that’s pretty much what the magazine is. The “Member Posts” section has short blog-like pieces that end up with the number of posts and comments that I assume are attibutable to that author on the AO Web site. Then there are a few one- to three-page articles about the Internet, blogs, communication technology, and high-tech business. And a couple of interviews. The big feature is “The AO Power List,” summary of a few dozen of the movers and shakers in the high-tech world.

It’s 48 printed pages, 18 of which are full-page ads. That leaves 30 pages of content for a susbcriber per-issue price of $9.75. (There was no cover price on the issue I received, so I don’t know what it would sell for on newstands if it even appeared there.) Is it worth it when you can just go out on the ‘Net and find the same kind of content online for free?

And I wonder how a quarterly publication can keep up with technology anyway. If it includes everything that happened since the last issue, most of that stuff would be sorely out of date. If it included only the latest and greatest info as it went to press, the information would still be stale — considering its editorial content — since it takes at least a few week for the actual production of the print publication. During that time, the same content could be covered to death on the Internet.

What’s interesting to me is that this publication should appear now. Last month, I got a letter from Technology Today, which I subscribe to, saying that because of the boom in Internet publishing and communication, they’d publishing once every two months rather than once a month. And the magazine would be getting slimmer. This, mind you, is a publication that has been in existence for more than 50 years. MIT, the folks that publish Technology Today, will be adding more current, up-to-date content, on its Web site, which has additional content for subscribers. So they expect subscribers to get most of the content they pay for online rather than in the printed magazine.

I also wonder where they got my name and address. From my Macworld Expo registration? Or from the Technology Today folks?

Anyway, in case you haven’t read between the lines, I’m not impressed and I won’t be subscribing to AlwaysOn. I’d be interested in hearing from other folks who have gotten this publication and liked it enough to sign up. Use the Comments link or form for this post to share your thoughts.

Mindless America?

I get a funny in e-mail that illustrates what I’ve been saying for some time now.

My friend Tom sent me the following joke via e-mail:

A man enters a bar and orders a drink. The bar has a robot bartender. The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, and then asks him,

“What’s your IQ?”

The man replies “150” and the robot proceeds to make conversation about global warming factors, Quantum physics and spirituality, bio-mimicry, environmental interconnectedness, string theory, nanotechnology, and sexual proclivities.

The customer is very impressed and thinks, “This is really cool.” He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the perfectly prepared drink and asks him,

“What’s your IQ?”

The man responds, “about 100.” Immediately the robot starts talking, but this time, about NASCAR, super models, favorite fast foods, guns, and women’s breasts.

Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test. He heads out and returns, the robot serves him and asks,

“What’s your IQ?”

The man replies, “Er, 50, I think.”

And the robot says, real slowly, “So…ya gonna vote for Bush again?”

Where Can I Get the News?

I’m tired of subjective, sensationalist, celebrity-heavy news.

Yesterday, on our way back from Red Creek, we saw a very large fire burning down near Phoenix, just northwest of South Mountain. The smoke could be seen from miles away — we had to be at least 30 miles north of there as we flew past. I wondered what the fire was and decided to check a local Phoenix-area news site for information.

I found all kinds of headlines there, but not one about a fire. Did you know a 5-year-old was grazed by a bullet yesterday? Or that Horton, the valley’s most “graphic” murderer (whatever that means), had been sentenced? Or that there are bedbugs in New York?

One click on the same Web site will tell you what to do with all the pretty candles around your house (perhaps put a match to them?), provide information about plastic surgery (I guess that’s real important to some people), and display television listings (so you can go from one screen right to another).

But the thing that really bugged me was the article about Gonzo. I didn’t even know who Gonzo was until I clicked the link. (Call me a sucker.) Gonzo is Luis Gonzales, a Diamondbacks outfielder. Evidently, he was on his way to a workout yesterday when he witnessed a rollover accident — a relatively common occurrence in the Phoenix area. He and several other witnesses rolled the pickup truck back over so the driver could get out. The result: Front Page News!

A few years back, my brother took an exit ramp too fast in his Jeep Wrangler and rolled it onto its side. The people who had been behind him on the ramp stopped to help. Together, they rolled the Jeep back onto its wheels. My brother thanked the people who helped him, cursed the broken mirror on the passenger side, restarted the engine, and drove away. The story didn’t even warrant a sentence in a newspaper.

But that’s because some major celebrity wasn’t involved in the righting of the vehicle. A celebrity with an agent who made sure he called the media to let them in on the celebrity’s “heroism.”

Give me a break. In my mind, heroism is a word applied to heros. Was the pickup truck burning and about to explode? Was it dangling on the edge of a precipice, about to fall in? Was the man trapped inside seriously injured? (If so, righting the vehicle with him still inside it was likely to make his injuries even worse.) Was he really trapped inside at all? If there was no immediate danger to the victim or the rescuers, I can’t see how the word hero could be applied to any of them. They were merely good samaritans, helping out a fellow motorist who couldn’t help himself. Isn’t that good enough?

Perhaps. But it doesn’t make front page news.

Please understand that I’m not Gonzo-bashing here. (I think anyone who helps someone in need is a good person who deserves a thank you, a handshake, and a pat on the back. Isn’t that enough for all of us?) I might be Gonzo’s agent-bashing, though. And I’m certainly bashing whatever newspapers thought this story was important enough to include as a major headline.

This country is entirely too focused on celebrities. We want to know what they’re wearing, who they’re married to, who they’re divorcing, how many babies are in the oven (or in adoption proceedings), what they eat, who they’re saying nasty things about, who they’re saying nice things about…you get the idea.

We even buy based on what celebrities say. Oprah puts her seal of approval on a poorly written “memoir” that was rejected as fiction by 17 publishers before finally being published, and it sells 3.5 million copies in a matter of months. What’s the thought pattern here? Oprah says its good and she’s a celebrity so it must be good.

And if it isn’t celebrity news and opinion, it’s tragedy. People want to know about the 5-year-old’s bullet graze and how much time the murderer got for his crime. People want to read about the last moments of the miners and hear the grief-stricken comments of the family members they left behind. People are tickled pink when one of our senators calls Venezuelans “wackos” — when the rest of the world considers Americans power-hungry imperialists.

Americans want to live their lives through the lives of other people. They’re not interested in building their own interesting lives. That’s why all those supermarket tabloids — not to mention the popular daily tabloids like the New York Post and the Daily News — sell so well. That’s why “reality” television is taking over prime time.

Me, I’m just looking for a good source of news that’s objective, non-sensationalist, and doesn’t treat celebrities any differently than other people. Do you know where I can get something like that? If so, use the Comment link to tell me.