With the proliferation of information-based blogs and blog marketing comes the need to report faster than the next fast typer. It’s perhaps why the blogger has gained the reputation of a caffeine-driven writer who spends every waking hour (and perhaps even some sleeping hours) perched above the warm glow of a keyboard, ready to report on breaking stories that are so hot, they’re steaming. Sometimes, however, the steam blinds the information-hungry reader into thinking that what is being reported on is true. A recent New York Times article explores the importance of being more relevant for blogs versus seeking credibility. The article describes the world yore when Newspapers were actually printed on actual paper, where writers fought to break stories first regardless of whether they checked sources or not. Eventually, newspapers that sought to be more credible survived because the readers demanded it. But now, methinks, the reader may be demanding more. So the question isn’t which is better. The question, in my opinion, is which is more interesting. Who says that all the news that’s fit to print has to be the cold hard facts? Perhaps there’s room for scuttlebutt and rumor just to keep things spiced up. By the way, did you hear that Apple is buying EA and Twitter?
Leave a Reply