My blog is about an article from the Atlantic wire discussing whether blogging was becoming an obsolete form of communication. The article cites a New York Times article that features a study showing a negative trend in the amount of blogs. The writter's slant is that blogging is not really dead. She uses extrinsic proof from other studies and intrinsic proof from other peoples opinions to make her argument. The author writes for anyone who is interested in blogging.
Later in her article, the author makes the assertion that social networking cites are basically blogs and so blogging is stronger than ever. I think that is a wishy-washy way to make an argument. By changing the definition of what she is arguing she undermines some of the ethos of her arguments. The author did not leave me feeling convinced, although I have a slant in favor of not-blogging. Seriously this is torture.
I agree with your statement about changing the definition of the word 'blogging'. It's a weakness in her argument.
ReplyDeleteI also lean more towards the side of not-blogging. It's just simply not my thing.
I agree with both of my classmates on this one. If it wasn't for the blog of this class, I wouldn't be "blogging" in the classical meaning. I also think that the author of your article has the same flaw you pointed out, she didn't leave me convinced either because she brings in the social networking sites. The only thing I see about those being blogs is like the Notes on facebook, and most of the time they are meaningless surveys.
ReplyDelete