Bloggers versus Newspaper Columnists
8 February 2007 at 5:23 pm Peter G. Klein 3 comments
| Peter Klein |
Arnold Kling, we recently noted, finds bloggers more valuable than journal editors. Richard Florida says bloggers are more interesting than newspaper columnists:
I not only prefer reading bloggers to columnists, I very much prefer blogging to writing a column. For several reasons. Columnists have to cover a wide range of turf, are forced to write in a formulaic 850 word framework, can’t hyper-link to source material and other content, and often are writing in areas and on subjects where they are not really experts. Plus they have “artificial” deadlines and can’t engage their audience. It seems to me that the on-line future favors bloggers over columnists in a big way.
Who are we to disagree?
3 Comments Add your own
Leave a comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed









1.
Vladimir Dzhuvinov | 9 February 2007 at 2:44 am
I haven’t read a paper in, hmm…, ages :)
One of the business papers I used to buy, Capital BG, also began publishing its columns online, then opened up a blog portal where columnists and other contributors could write freely. Interestingly, a significant number of the blog posts makes it to the printed edition.
I have to add that the owner of the paper is a former journalist. I don’t know how profitable their business model is, but the paper is highly regarded in our country.
2.
Bruce Lewin | 12 February 2007 at 5:14 am
I certainly prefer bloggers to columnists
3.
Cliff Grammich | 14 February 2007 at 11:24 pm
A Chicago Tribune columnist, Eric Zorn, has a regular column in the paper once or twice a week, but appears to reprint his blog offerings more often in the pages of the paper. He’s rather predictable, so I don’t necessarily recommend his print or electronic offerings–well, outside what I view as sometimes heroic work on the death penalty–but I find the trend telling. Zorn was also, to my knowledge, one of the first local columnists to blog seriously.