Who wants to be a pundit?

I have long been of the opinion that most of the views and vitriol spewed forth by the blogosphere - that irascible collective of wannabe hacks, makeshift op-ed writers and lonely souls, of which I am proudly a part - too often lean towards self-importance, where facts and grammar come a distant second to volume and humour. And I'm pleased to discover that I'm not the only one who would like to see the growing number of techno-utopians popping up around the net take a small, but well needed reality check. The New Republic dedicated a large chunk of its last edition to the resurgent influence of blogs and the idea of the instant pundit, and it's none too pretty. The most stinging criticism made by Christine Rosen in her TNR piece (which you'll have to download in pdf form, because there is no direct link to the article - or you could even buy a hard copy of the magazine) is that of "intellectual dishonesty" on the part of the blogosphere, which is probably better described as intellectual laziness. According to Rosen, a reflective discussion based around facts, rather than the type of knee jerk reaction blogging has built its reputation and popularity around, is largely what's missing from the blogosphere. The mainstream media's (MSM, because acronyms are always so useful and clear-cut) biggest weapon in its ongoing fight for credibility is this sort of detail and analysis. Blogging is, most of the time, an ill-considered reaction - one based on timeliness rather than considered judgement and an accurate assessment of the facts.

In effect, the blogosphere has become a crude form of the echno-humanism that Reynolds celebrates - technology now permits thoughts to be constantly published in more-or-less real time,as if the blog were an extension of the brain. And, even if the blogosphere could foster a more reflective discussion,it hugely privileges the instant response and the explosive rant on the issue of the moment. This may be valuable in certain circumstances. Blogging has undeniably made it much easier for people to share opinions and information and to find like-minded souls.Patches of good writing exist out there, as well as impeccable argumentation. But it’s nothing more than old-fashioned techno-utopianism to assume that the blogosphere could adequately supersede the old media order or to believe that traditional institutions can be so easily and casually jettisoned.

The most interesting debate being thrashed out in media circles these days is over the question of whether the old media - newspapers, traditional radio and television news - will be crushed under the weight of this citizen journalism, or blogging. Almost everyone, including media company CEOs and their respective boards, have declared that it's only a matter of time before this new age of journalism becomes the mainstream; an age where photos of a terrorist attack can be published almost instantaneously, and where people can have their two cents online before they even know what they've written. But would you expect anything else from the business arm of the media industry? Blogging is cheap - it uses the internet, as opposed to the outside world, as the basis for almost all its research - and it's not hamstrung by printing schedules or deadlines. Soon, it'll only be the journalists and a few ageing commentators who'll be willing to howl in disarray at the declining quality of the mainstream press. Did someone say fact-checker? A what...?

Anyone reading this (and I don't think anyone actually does) please consider this: being an instant pundit, with an opinion on everything and everyone, may stroke the ego, but it's not doing a God damn thing for the art, or the future of journalism.

NB: Please, I am aware of the concept of irony, and although this piece may be dripping in the stuff, it should not be taken as journalism, or even seriously. It's a blog, for God's sake. I'm writing this for my amusement and my own enjoyment, and for no other reason.