Centerfield

Yes, blogs are a supplement to journalism. A very important one. Readers, for the first time, can converse immediately about the topic in hand using the comments page and come to some kind of conclusion...or not. Very difficult to speak with a journalist, much less have a conversation with him/her. However, I subscribe to two newspapers--the local and the LA Times, then go online and read the NY Times, Washington Post and any other I choose to. They are irreplaceable. Bloggers are going to be speaking to people, going places that the major journalists probably won't be--and they'll comment on it all. They, now, are also irreplaceable. The more info, the better, I say. :)))

With respect to political weblogs I take an alternate view. I see them as the modern-day equivalent to the neighborhood or village printing press operation churning out political pamphlets in the lead up to the Revolutionary War. The point isn't so much to replace mainstream journalism as it is to offer an alternative voice. One where an individual or group of citizens can sound off on what they feel is politically important and why.

Methinks you have a timid view of what bloggers are and will become. Go boldly into that good night, young Blogtivedanta! Schopenhauer said "writing for money has been the death of literature" for a reason. And that reason has only gotten worse!

While you can...write! Write! Write! For when you're bought, you are their man, not yours.

There are bloggers who are not just linksters and bloviators. Some are poets, philosophers, linguists, artists, composers, deipnosophists, and some are, yes, yeth hounds. Not sure why.

If by "Centrist" you mean "impartial"...have at it! The so-called "Left" doesn't want information spun right or left. This only taints the information, and it is only with good information, good principles, good insights...that we will truly benefit from your delightful instruction.

But, God-forbid, "Centrist" means taking blood-money or BS from both sides...all I can say is "NOT fair and balanced"...

Trust your wiser angels, and don't write for some perceived "center". The brains that drained from traditional media lo those many "net years" ago are now the blognoscenti. You know this. No need to apologize to those who merely get paid. It is, after all, compensation.

Best,
Dave
HyperLincoln

Gasp! Mark this post for posterity! I'm in complete agreement with Kevin!

David, I think we have our own grasp on centrism, and I don't think "impartial" is any major part of it. If we were impartial we simply wouldn't bother. Non-aligned, non-dogmatic, and politically self-determined would be much closer, IMHO. Reality based, instead of ideologically based. (The mileage of others may vary--widely.)

ROFL! You might be surprised, Tully. I'd bet there are a few more things that you and I would be in complete agreement on. My problem is that I wear my emotions on my sleeve. I'm so dead-set opposed to the Bush administration that it colors most of what I post. Had you perused my ramblings during the Monical Lewinsky scandal, you'd likely have perceived me as decidedly to the right of center. I calls 'em the way I sees 'em.

BTW, nice response to David. I'll ditto it.

To my way of looking at it, Centrism differs from the other usual suspects primarily in the orientation of the proverbial cart to the horse. Rather than filter the outside world thru the lense of a favored xxx.ism, Centrists take each situation on what we believe to be it's own merits and proceed from there. The ending point for a given Centrist may well be indistinguishable from that reached by a Liberal or a Conservative on that same issue. But the pathway is decidedly different.

You might be surprised, Tully. I'd bet there are a few more things that you and I would be in complete agreement on.

I'm positive of it, Kevin. It just startles me sometimes!