Directed Blog Post 1: E-Reporting

The standard mainstream media receives constant undivided attention day in and day out. Grandma’s and Grandpa’s, the United States over, turn on the tube and click it to Fox News. Reporting to you neutral and unbiased updates from around the globe; the mainstream media delivers. We report, you decide. However, with the advent of online blogging we have been given the opportunity to diversify the channels of news delivery. Over the years, the critical thinker has been more and more hard pressed to rely solely on what is fed to us by the mainstream. The critical thinker, given a basic understanding of the internet, may have advanced to newer media such as blogging. But is this source more or less reliable? Can we trust blogs? Can we trust anyone? Isn’t everybody just trying to convince you of their opinion anyway?

To give you, my comrade, some sense of relative understanding I read two articles. “Wow, quite a stunning achievement,” you may say. Har har. However, I read more than that today. I digress. I read two articles of different media, both of which discuss the topic of Microsoft bidding on Yahoo!.

Exhibit A.”The New York Times”, World Renowned Newspaper
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/technology/01cnd-subyahoo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Exhibit B.”“Joe Duck” Internet Entrepreneur, Online Quack”,  Obscure, Random Blog
http://joeduck.com/2008/02/01/why-microsoftyahoogoogle/

Let’s begin with the content. Actually, first let me state that this “analysis” isn’t really an analysis. It’s my opinion, you know, the thing that is expressed in a blog (most commonly). Now that we have that out of the way I can proceed with my comparative analysis. The content and format of the NYT article is quite simple: introduction, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, end. Content and format of the Quack’s blog was something like this: introduction, opinion, opinion, opinion, end (Why did I just write that incredibly dorky delivery method). Both articles are discussing the same subject matter. It’s just that the NYT is telling me what actually happened, while the blog is telling me what the dude thinks.

New York Times is read daily by millions of people. If what they deliver isn’t credible, and neutral, they are going to face severe criticism. Why shouldn’t they? Rhetorical question; truth is they get away with it just like everyone else. My point is, their work is comprehensively reviewed. The Times article seems dedicated to deliver unbiased, solid facts; you can’t argue with those. For example, the NYT discusses motivators and statistical figures revolving around Microsoft’s decision to bid on Yahoo!. 

On the alternative, the Quack’s audience, if there is one, probably doesn’t read his blog for more than his fine opinion. That’s why we read and write blogs anyway. However with opinion comes extreme bias. Joe Duck thinks that once Microsoft and Yahoo! merge, they will be superior to Google, a fallacious and bonkers idea (seriously, think about it).

In the end, Joe Duck and I have a lot in common. We both rant in our blogs and are into IT. Maybe that’s why blogs truly exist in the first place; a free zone for overworked IT professionals to come and rant about utter nonsense.

Here’s a video completely unrelated to the two articles I just compared. However, it does touch on the Microsoft/Yahoo! merger. Plus you might learn something.