Polly doesn't get it

It's a cliche that the dead trees just don't understand blogging. But cliches become cliches because they are true, as Polly demonstrates (via Iain):

People say: ‘What's the difference between a blog and column anyway?"...There is a skill in crafting a column with a beginning, a middle and an end, a coherent argument and at least three facts readers don't know, preferably information gleaned from talking to the leading players in the case. There is a risk that the style of the blogosphere is dragging us all along to shout louder.

This just shows that Polly doesn't read the many intelligent blogs there are; Devil's Kitchen, whatever his merits or demerits, is not representative of the blogosphere.
I like to think this blog - which Polly doesn't read - contains a few facts, some of which might even be true. And I like to think they have a beginning and middle at least. They don't have an end, because  I don't have (or want) the final word.
What's more,  there is little advantage "talking to the leading players." If these have anything worth saying, they publish it so we can scrutinize it. There can be no role for private information in democratic policy-making.
Speaking of which, Polly is horribly wrong on another point:

If you start out assuming that all politicians are ill-intentioned knaves and bounders who are all out to feather their own nests, you will illuminate nothing for your readers and discover very little of interest...

So James Buchanan won a Nobel prize for illuminating nothing? 

...You will be adding to the dangerous anti-democratic mood.

No. The venality of our politicians is an argument for more democracy, not less - for greater openness, greater scrutiny and more direct democracy.
But then, if you don't understand blogs, you won't learn that there's more to politics than the Westminster village.

Comments

[Cleanthes]

Chris, I disagree with this:

"Devil's Kitchen, whatever his merits or demerits, is not representative of the blogosphere. "

DK is a fabulous example to knock down this ludicrous assertion of la Pol:

"but this is of another dimension because you can't answer back unless in public because they're anonymous. "

Bloggers put their rebuttals to Polly in public: why on earth would she want her reply to be private? If the blogger is wrong, I would have thought Polly would want all who read the incorrect article to know that it is indeed wrong and why.

If DK is so wrong, then show that to be the case. Polly's problem is that she does not really want to engage with those who challenge her statist views. the blogosphere is not an echo-chamber (well, some of it isn't) and that makes Polly distinctly uncomfortable.

[dearieme]

How would Polly know if there were a coherent argument, or three facts? Her coherence sonar doesn't work and her fact radar is non-existent.

[Katherine]

Um, I believe that Chris said that DK is not representative of the blogosphere. The fact that he is apparently a fabulous example of something or other is not quite the same thing as being representative of the whole blogosphere.

[Cleanthes]

Katherine,

Are any of us representative of the *whole* blogosphere?

[Chris C]

I think this site is a propagator of nonsense and piffle in support of an outdated and outrageous manifesto: supporting Arsenal.