Blogs should offer more than an opportunity for self-promotion, argues Becky Hogge
When I was a little girl, I dreamed of having my own column. At 27, I appear to have fulfilled my ambition. Unfortunately for my sense of self-achievement, the whole bloody world is now a columnist. Volunteering an opinion on the issues of the day is as easy as setting up an account with one of the many blogging service providers. More often than not, these new voices ape the worst of those in the national press, generalising from trifles, affecting an air of self-importance that barely conceals the poor levels of research, compromised upon to file on time and to length. Occasionally, however, a character emerges whose ideas, methods or contacts build up a considerable following.
One such is the pseudonymous Guido Fawkes, whose blog of Westminster gossip has broken stories in the national press. Fawkes recently took aim at two institutions that attempt to aggregate opposing points of view in order to further debate: "Comment is Free is, like Open Democracy, a conglomeration of variable quality writing from various perspectives. CiF has no personality - successful newspapers have personality, the best blogs have personality. People want to know what they are getting. The smorgasboard [sic] approach doesn't seem to work very well."
The Guardian's bold experiment is certainly big enough to defend itself. But, ignoring the accusation of poor quality from a man who cannot spell "smorgasbord", I can tell you - because I happen to work at openDemocracy - that Guido's comments sparked debate in the oD office. Although Fawkes was kind enough to grant us a modicum of personality, his distrust of showcasing a variety of views merits debate, especially as this is our core tenet, for which we have just won a New Statesman New Media award.
Although web users don't have to visit openDemocracy to find views that oppose their own, the relative success of Guido's site and others like it is testament to the fact that they might choose not to look for other opinions. These "me media", where readers seek out views that they agree with, are thriving in the internet's age of the everyman columnist.
Indeed, openDemocracy's forums are full of people who have been attracted to the site by an article espousing a singular point of view. Consequently, the debates held within them are very often vicious and prolonged affairs, conducted between individuals who would cross the street to avoid one another in real life. Sometimes they end in an agreement to disagree; more often they descend into vulgarity and slander. But just occasionally, people's minds are changed by engaging with the foreign beliefs and cultures they encounter.
Indisputably, this is hard work. The real difference, however, is between those media that expand our horizons and those media that narrow them. I know which I prefer.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
