Joe, Matt and I joined forces for this weeks digital artifact. Tomorrow we’re going to combine ideas to make the finished product. Today we’re just gathering ingredients. Here is what I’ve got so far for sources:
- The Gendered Blogosphere: Examining Inequality Using Network and Feminist Theory.
- Merriam-Webster’s Definition of “Pundit.”
- Posting With Passion: Blogs and the Politics of Gender.
We were initially going to discuss some of the basics for this chapter (sexism vs. ageism) but then after we began researching, our ideas evolved. Matt strayed toward ageism, Joe took the pseudonym route, and I decided to explore “filter” blogs. Maybe it’s my deep-down dislike for those who believe themselves to be better than everyone else. Most of the time, it’s because they are, but hey, you don’t need to go rubbing it in all the time.
One quote in particular from Uses of Blogs got me started down this road.
As other researchers have argued, however, these perceptions create a hierarchy whereby the group or pundit blog– sometimes called the “filter” blog–is the authentic form against which other styles of blogging must be judged” (155)
The author then goes on to explain how none of these pundit blogs have really addressed the basis of which they go around “judging” blogs.
What these debates also typically avoid is any significant debate about what makes atopic “political,” “newsworthy,” or “important” in the first place (155)
This reminds me of something Prof. Morgan told me about my first couple of blog posts. He said I was “snarky” but there wasn’t any basis for me being “snarky” other than my own personal opinion. I didn’t have and facts to back myself up. Isn’t this a similar situation? The filter blogs are sitting there being snarky about other people’s blogs, judging them with criteria they don’t understand fully.
If you’re going to label someone’s blog as worthless you better have a rubric or something. Maybe then we can really call them “A-List” bloggers.