Need to Convince a Blog Skeptic

“Convince me. I have read a few blogs and found them more of the same: to my eyes, the web is already far too full of people with opinions, some of them good, some not, and links to other people with other opinions. So I am agnostic at present about the potential of blogs–are they leading to anything deeper than an extension of our opinion-first, evidence-later culture? Can you suggest some worthwhile blogs that will show me the potential you see in them?”

I have some ideas, but if you know of a winning article that convinced you or pushed you over the hump when it comes to blogging, please leave a comment. Otherwise, I’ll let you know what I come up with. Give me a couple weeks and I bet I turn this skeptic into an intrigued fan.

7 Responses to Need to Convince a Blog Skeptic

  1. Rauno says:

    Because blogs and syndication empower people to discover information that previously was not shared anywhere but in conversations (as long as people who’re interested in the same thing are blogging:), your skeptic will have to find their very own personal reason to get excited about blogs. There is no one-size-fits-all or this-is-what-you-should-think aspect to them. The more curious they are about the world, the sooner it’ll happen. And be ready to enjoy their “AHA!” moment when they find that blog that says, ‘you might have read about this on CNN, here’s what really happened…’

    Of course, if there are no blogs discussing their interests, they’ll have to be the first to start and that’s always tough…

  2. Ted Ernst says:

    Why feel the need to be the blog missionary? Yes, clearly blogs have become a very important communications tool for many people, and beyond that, have helped people connect with one another in a new way. Great! So do it. Why the need to convince?

  3. Jesse Berrett says:

    I am that skeptic. What I don’t get is the particular attractions of the blog form in particular. I mean, I can read about “What CNN Didn’t Show” or whatever in media critics’ columns, for instance. What significant difference inheres in blogging it? (Or, how does this conversation advance past what we can do on a bulletin board?) To me, good writing is good writing, in whatever form it exists, and I already look beyond the mainstream media for broader perspectives on the news. So while I am glad that there are more people out there with new opinions and new ways to share them, I am not ready to say that blogs will change my life, or anyone else’s, either.

    What about, dare I say it, historical perspective? How are blog evangelists different from everyone 10 years ago who was certain that Web equaled millennium? Good conversation, and good thinking, are always to be treasured, and I agree that blogs are a good development in that they let people have detailed, thoughtful (and organized, I suppose, which IS an advance over BBs) conversations with one another. But Ben and others want to convince me that they’re a radically important new means of communicating (and thinking?), and I do not yet see why I should think so.

  4. - A one piece takeawayJack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods A two piece takeawayErnie Els, David Duval, Karrie Webb, Anika Sorenstam A three piece takeawayRaymond Floyd, Nancy Lopez Choose anyone you wish that feels comfortable and natural. golfterms

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>