You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
Faith
Confessing Evangelical Evangelical Outpost He Lives Mere Comments Mirror of Justice Religion Clause Three Hierarchies Science Dispatches from the Culture Wars In the Pipeline New Scientist Tierney Lab Liberty A Constrained Vision Asymmetrical Information Becker-Posner Blog Hit & Run Instapundit Positive Liberty The Agitator Volokh Conspiracy Economics Café Hayek EconLog Environmental Economics Freakonomics Free Exchange Greg Mankiw J. Bradfor DeLong Marginal Revolution The Right Andrew Sullivan Best of the Web Eunomia Hugh Hewitt Michelle Malkin Power Line The American Scene The Corner The Left After the Future Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Political Animal Talking Points Memo Errata Daniel Drezner Democracy in America Dilbert Blog Lilek's Bleat Overcoming Bias The Sartorialist Hoosiers Daily Contentions Indiana Barrister Masson's Blog Matthew Stevenson |
|
« Below the fold | Main | A Theology of the Cross » April 19, 2007'Live Blogging'What's the point of this practice? Although there may be a few definitions of the phrase, I see it almost always used in the context of writing (i.e., blogging) the entire time a speaker is speaking. When people "live blog," it seems to become a big deal. It's often advertised in advance (see here and here), and then just to make sure it gets maximum exposure, I'll sometimes get emails reminding me to check it out. A recent example which inspired this post was Power Line's Scott Johnson deciding to "live blog" the Alberto Gonzales hearing. In Scott's defense he did not hype the event as many often do, but the futility of "live blogging" comes through. If I wanted to experience the hearings I would just watch them myself. Or, if I didn't have access to a television, I would watch it on CSPAN's archives online. And if I needed the actual text I would read the transcript, which will no doubt be available through congressional websites. Why would I turn to Scott Johnson's garbled summaries spread out over hundreds of posts? Here's an example of what we get: I just tuned in to the hearing on CSpan. Senator Schumer is talking now.Riveting. Here's an example from a live blog of the 79th Academy Awards (order reversed to fit chronologically): 10:25pm: Is anyone else getting excited about 'Best Documentary'? It's coming up!!One gets the sense that these bloggers imagine readers experiencing things with them in real time through their blog, collectively partaking in the highs and lows of whatever is on television. Is this what we've come to? I hasten to note there are moments when "live blogging" makes sense, such as when the blogger sees an event live but it will only be showed to the public sometime later (here's an example). Or when you're witnessing an event or conference that will not be televised or published at all (here's an example). Yet the vast majority of "live blogging" I see does not fall within these exceptions. They're simply real-time accounts that can be accessed elsewhere in a far more superior ways. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at April 19, 2007 10:21 AM CommentsThe only real-time "blogging" I enjoy is that on bloggingheads.tv and similar formats. This phenomenon isn't really blogging - it is simply a video recording of a conversation between two people. It's called video blogging, probably, because bloggers do it and they would like to think of themselves as blogging when in reality they're just having a open video conference. Posted by: Chuck at April 19, 2007 12:03 PM | permalink The colloquial phrase for that is vlogging, and is distinct from "live blogging," at least as I've seen it used. Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at April 19, 2007 12:07 PM | permalink During the spring 2003 invasion of Iraq, a blog updated by an Iraqi native provided a somewhat "live" play-by-play on events transpiring on the ground level. The blog covered everything from state media messages airing on TV, presence - or lack thereof - of any semblance of economic activity, etc. Here was certainly a cituation which a live blog may provide the only viable mass media outlet. Posted by: Terry J. Record at April 19, 2007 03:06 PM | permalink Actually, transripts of House and Senate Committee hearings are rarely if ever provided by any governmental websites. There are businesses like Fed News that sell them however. Posted by: Arlen at April 19, 2007 06:45 PM | permalink Actually, Congressional committee hearings in modern times are almost always provided by governmental websites (and are required to be published in print). The only problem is that there's typically a delay to them being put up, sometimes as much as two-three months or longer. As I understand it the Fed News does sell them at a quicker turn around. Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at April 20, 2007 07:20 AM | permalink How is that different from a blog entry like this:
Those who care would have watched the program, or at least looked for the result on MSNBC or somewhere. Those of us who only see it on ITA are those who couldn't care less. Posted by: wahoofive at April 23, 2007 11:42 AM | permalink Post a comment |
|
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
|