My two cents is that users consider a personal blog “legit” when it’s done on the spur of the moment, without a ghostwriter or a huge staff. I’d hazard to guess that having a typo or saying something that was slightly “off message” would actually lend to his credibility here.

Is a blog still a blog if it’s just using blog software and formatting to send highly-scripted messages?

Avram Piltch
http://www.geekinchief.com

Hastert also doesn’t appear ready to fully seize the conversational spirit of the blogosphere. He doesn’t offer comments on his blog, and he starts his first post by describing the new online venue as “a new way for us to get our message out.” That kind of talk doesn’t exactly inspire much confidence that readers can expect the “unfiltered updates on Capitol Hill” that Hastert promises a few sentences later.

Hastert ends the post like this: “Well, there you have it folks. I’ve outlined some of our priorities: fiscal responsibility and energy. I’m going to keep updating this from time to time. It’s not that bad. Looks like this old guy can still learn a thing or two.”

Let’s hope so.

Jef, what about “consanguineous”.

2nd… being 3rd in line to the president isnt all its shaped up to be anymore. Like being 3rd in line to nixon.

R2000
Bathroom Review

APF, I’m beginning to think it does. Blogs without comments are not really blogs. They’re websites, or Spews, if you’d like a more accurate term for them since the people putting them up are spewing forth their opinion. They don’t ever have to defend their point of view in the ‘distributed conversation’.

Not only that, but they can seed that conversation, throwing out carefully crafted and sanitized PR statements (propaganda), challenges to which they do not have to directly feature on their Spew, and watch while we chase after them, like seals chasing after fish at a zoo (Oik! Oik! Oik!), just like we’re trained to, maybe even jump through a few hoops and balance a ball on our nose while we’re at it.

To clear a point up here, when I use the term propaganda I am not only referring to one-sided government blogs but to anyone trying to craft an image or create a buzz about something remotely. I have attacked other so-called bloggers in this forum for exactly that and they did not work for the government.

I understand that the Speaker of the House ‘blogging’ gives credence to blogging, but

a). he isn’t blogging, he’s spewing, and

b). blogging is a phenomenon that’s here to stay, with or without the Speaker’s endorsement.

Blogs without comments are monuments to the person’s ego or they are propaganda outlets. There are exceptions. Dave Winer, in my opinion, has a Spew, not a blog. However, if someone challenges something he puts up when it’s featured on someone else’s blog that does allow comments (like for example, the recent ‘open’ media summit discussion right here on Jeff’s blog), Dave will jump into that conversation and fight for his point of view. So while he has a Spew, he does engage in blogging. I don’t expect to see the Speaker of the House do this. It’s possible he’s just experimenting and in time will allow a two way conversation on his site. With all the headaches that would involve, I think it would also make visiting his site a more worthwhile and interesting experience.

If on many levels of government there was the ability to have an open conversation with the people they are elected to serve, we would have a situation where the real areas the government are doing well in and the real areas where they are falling down would become clear. Maybe not immediately, but over time. And we would start to have a government that truly did serve the people again and not just itself.

Before anyone accuses me of being naive, remember that the Founders of America were very intelligent, well-read men with very naive ideals; ideals that served America well for a long time.

Now is the time to encourage open, two-way conversation and not be satisfied with a government Spew.

I do give the Speaker credit for being brave enough to do this especially if he does it on his own. Getting to know any elected leader is hard there is so much filtering of their personality on TV and by staff.

Where’s the value in getting someone’s one-sided opinion? Wouldn’t the value be self-evident? If you leave a comment on someone’s blog and no one responds, is the value of that comment therefore nullified? Is the proof of the pudding in the eating, or in a Zagat review that’s put in Times Square and made available for everyone to scribble-in their own reflections? It’s in the eating. There are plenty of blogs’ comment sections that are mindless echochamber “first post” “me too” snoozefests of absolutely no value outside of the regulars’ insular world, but that doesn’t mean the blogger’s actual posts are valueless to me. Read the blog and whether or not it has value to you will quickly become evident.

One problem with distributed conversation, especially in politics, is that it gives you attention for your point of view without you necessarily ever having to defend it. It becomes nothing more than propaganda – him seeding the conversation with his point of view. And where’s the value in that?