Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Who are we? Why are we here? Where are the links?

In recent posts, two of our bloggers have tried to set the record straight with regard to some factual inaccuracies or outlandish opinions that appeared on the editorial pages of the Columbia Spectator. The posts feature one op-ed and two letters to the editor. One of the letters to the editor was rejected for publication (no word yet on the other pieces), so this blog is the only place where you can read it.

Are we becoming to the Spec what the blogosphere generally is to the MSM (mainstream media, for the blog virgins out there)? I'm talking about what Eugene Volokh and Randy Barnett (who will be visiting Columbia on Thursday, March 3, by the way) discuss here, here and here. I know we are not quite there yet, but is that where we are headed?

UPDATE: More on the evolving relationship of blogs and the MSM in Peggy Noonan WSJ's column.

While we are at it, we should take full advantage of the medium and add links when posting a piece that was first written for a print premium. On this issue, I recommend Volokh's ongoing posts criticizing Slate's failure to include links in its "Bushism of the Day" section.

Which is not to say that we should not continue with assorted commentary and the lighthearted stuff.

1 comment:

Adam Scavone said...

We're getting there. I think an essential part of changing the "local MSM" (if you will) is to let them get an earful whenever the publish things that are innaccurate, off-base, or just plain moronic.

For those of you who were disgusted by Rosenthal's piece, take thirty seconds to send a letter to the editor (it doesn't have to be pretty - start with "Not intended for publication" if you just want to get your comments in).

opinion@columbiaspectator.com or spectator@columbiaspectator.com