The Case Against Editors - Why it still pays to not have one.
This a thought provoking article. It discusses the much-talked-about ideas of how weblogs circumvent the editing process and if this is a positive or negative. The article seems to lay out many of the pitfalls and criticisms, but all-in- all favors the Weblog as a viable and worthwhile tool that presents more opportunities than it does risks.
One point I hadn't considered previously is the line that can be drawn between the risks of weblogging and appearing on live TV...
Got hubris? How do the risks of blogging compare with other types of speech? How about talking? Even Serious Thinkers talk. Why isn't blogging like talking, except that you are talking to (potentially) the whole world? That isn't so innovative. Talking on television is talking to (potentially) the whole world, without an editor in sight. I've even seen Leon Wieseltier on TV on occasion. Talking on television is actually more dangerous than blogging, because on the Web there's an opportunity to revise in a way that will actually perform a corrective function. You can't go back and change what you said on Nightline. And if there's a hubris of Weblogging, there's also a hubris of Gutenberging--the idea that you can routinely comment on current events in a way that merits permanent commitment to paper. What's more arrogant than hitting "send"? Hitting "print."
Thanks for the pointer Dave!