My blog is a spiritual springboard?

If you're reading this on a decent-sized monitor you'll see at the top-left a search box and the words "Next Blog»". These are provided by Blogger (this is a Blogger blog). It's been a while since I clicked on the "Next Blog»" link, so today I gave it another go. Or rather, about a dozen goes. I was puzzled to find it linked each time to a blog of distinctly spiritual character — bible quotes, God-talk, prayers, Christianity, even a blog authored by a pastor.

After eight or so of these clicks I lost count, and was about to give up at nearly a dozen when I landed on a page with not a bible quote in sight. But scrolling down I found it was the blog of someone who gives Tarot readings. That, however, was a fluke — another click landed me in the goddy again and I gave up. I assume Blogger is (inappropriately) routing these links based on the content of this blog, and the preponderance of linky-Jesus isn't merely random coincidence.

The link is up there on the left — see if you get the same results.

On another matter, I've attempted a degree of consolidation here, importing some older posts from the blog I had before this one, along with any comments — which is why the Intense Debate sample on the right probably looks a bit haywire. It should settle down after a while, and then Evil Burnee will be super-spiffy and together, all set for 2014.

Has blogging had its day? (repost from other blog)

In general agreement with what these people were saying on the Today Programme recently, I think the answer is no.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7685000/7685883.stm

It is not worth starting a blog, and if you already have one you should think about closing it down, an article on the technology website Wired says. Robin Hamman, of computing consultancy Headshift, and Guardian writer and blogger Kate Bevan discuss whether shorter forms of communication, such as Twitter, are taking over.

They go on about Twitter - a service I've never seen the point of, even if whole swathes of savvy internet users seem to swear by it (though perhaps not literally).

I blog because I'm a writer, and because I frequently don't know what I really think until I've written it down. Whether anyone else reads the thing isn't necessarily an issue (though discourse is, as always, welcome).

(And just in case anyone scoffs at the idea of a monthly post here at WitteringOn being classed as actual blogging, I would refer them to my other blog, Notes from an Evil Burnee.)

If the audio stream isn't working, download the mp3 from RapidShare here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/341863325/Today_BloggingHadItsDay_BBCR4i-20081023.mp3

(5'50"; 1.4 Mb)

What is a blog? (repost from other blog)

Not only a succinct explanation of what a blog is, but also what it's for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN2I1pWXjXI

Significant new media ... or pointless bloggery? (repost from other blog)

Andrew Keen has published (using 'old media') a book about the evils of new media: The Cult of the Amateur. Naturally he wants to promote it on the Today Programme:

Click here for streaming audio
(the relevant piece is at 21'09" into this 26'22" clip)*


Download RealPlayer here

Sorry, Mr Keen, the new media is here to stay. It has its faults, just like old media, but your bleating about 'authority' and 'editors' won't make it go away. It's the lack of the old kind of regulation that makes the new media so attractive to its users.

(More later, when I've had time to collate my thoughts on this important subject.)
.
.
.
(Later...)

Now that I've listened to the clip again, and had time to consider, here's my take (note that I've not read Mr Keen's book):

Historically, people have been less likely to question the authority of the old media than they are to question the authority of the new media. Now, they are savvy enough to know that just because something is on a web page doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

When people read stuff on blogs, or MySpace, or wherever, they know it has no built-in authority and will interpret what they read accordingly. Youngsters growing up with the new media are fully aware that they are free to create stuff themselves, and they are also aware of how much authority they themselves have in doing so (that is, none at all) so they are naturally inclined to question what they read.

As a result of this default mode of questioning, they're likely to apply the same critical thinking to all media, new and old -- which can only be a good thing.

If you ask people whether they believe everything they read in a traditionally printed newspaper, they'll likely say, "No, of course not." But until recently if you questioned what someone was telling you about a reported event, they're likely to have told you, "It's true, I read it in the Daily Such-&-Such."

Wikipedia is often brought up as an example of how the internet shouldn't be trusted, but Wikipedia's self-correcting mechanism ensures that its information is mostly reliable. Not completely, but mostly reliable. Just like Britannica, as a December 2005 report has shown.

One of Andrew Keen's objections to the new media is that it has 'zero value'. By which I suspect he means it's free, and therefore worthless. Aside from any frustrations he might have with being unable to monetize his own internet-based efforts, this is a particularly blinkered view. Something is only worth what you pay for it? Hard cash or you're not interested? Tell that to Google. Tell that to Scott Sigler.

Web 2.0 is not, as Brian Appleyard incorrectly states in this clip, to do with interactivity -- we had that to some degree in Web 1.0 -- it's mainly to do with the separation of form from content, which is what makes the creation of web-content so easy for the non-technical user. Web 2.0 is facilitating a medium that allows people to make themselves heard -- to communicate, to create, to think. Long may it continue.

*UPDATE: If the streaming audio is unavailable, download the mp3 of the clip from RapidShare here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/296130093/Today_AndrewKeen_Amateur_BBCR4i-20070625.mp3