« Mozilla, byte, bite... | Main | Too many Java IDEs? »

20040713 Tuesday July 13, 2004

Blogging and perception modification

Don't consider this a blog entry on politics. I find it interesting that at the Democratic Convention only approved bloggers are allowed. According to the article, the same will be the case for the Republican convention. Imagine if Sun only allowed approved bloggers at JavaOne? Approving bloggers sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Isn't "approving bloggers" counter to the blogging culture in general? I thought the idea of blogging was to allow an individual to directly get their own word out, whether it be fact or opinion. There is nothing to stop convention/conference attendees from blogging after-the-fact. I just think that trying to modify the perception of any event (political or not) is counter to the blogging culture. Limiting blogging to the press is a form of modifying perception, IMHO. I blogged here about the value of not funneling information through the press. So what if someone with a different viewpoint flames a convention? It is a viewpoint none-the-less.

(2004-07-13 08:28:03.0) Permalink Comments [3]

Comments:

The approved bloggers are "accredited", not "allowed". This means they will get the same kind of access journalists do, not that any kind of censorship is applied to bloggers (which would be unenforceable, in any case, as you rightly point out). From all reports, conventions are mind-numbingly dull affairs, and the accreditation might prove to be a poisoned chalice...

Posted by Fazal Majid on July 13, 2004 at 10:23 AM PDT #

Yeah, I see where you are coming from. Is the accreditation process posted (although they are under no obligation to post it)? I understand why they go through an accreditation process, but it seems counter to the value of blogging in general - unfiltered content. Actually, using your wording, I would change the wording to "only accredited bloggers are allowed". I will stick to the word "allowed", although I agree with replacing the word "approved" with "accredited". I was using the articles title (approved) versus the admittedly more accurate "accredited". I just find it interesting that blogging as a medium is being used and thought I would throw out the question.

Posted by John Clingan on July 13, 2004 at 11:12 AM PDT #

Jeff Jarvis pulled together some of the earliest links on this... the big problem is that the DNC didn't explain its selection criteria, and then wasn't upfront with its de-selection criteria for the disinvitees, either. (Some of the writers they did invite are ones I've found to be quite unreadable, but hey, maybe I'm a freak.... ;-) I get the sense that "convention bloggers" are because people know "blogging" is a hot happenin' thang, but they don't quite know how it can fit with what their conventions are all about. I'd like to see reports that would not be acceptable in newsprint format, for instance. For that "approval of certain bloggers", I think that translates to "we'll give 'em a chair and a guaranteed power outlet"... I wouldn't be surprised if some of the regular Party Faithful were already bloggers themselves, so the point may be moot overall...?

Posted by John Dowdell on July 13, 2004 at 02:01 PM PDT #

Post a Comment:

Comments are closed for this entry.