Well, sort of … the Chronicle’s blog isn’t much more at this point than a headline-gathering service: valuable, but not very exciting. A bigger problem, though, is that the bloggers are not identified. The anonymity suggests there’s little chance of finding interesting voices on this site. Thankfully, one can leave comments and do trackbacks, so they haven’t shut the interactivity off. Their latest blog, for example, points to a newspaper article on how email and electronic workplace interruptions generally lower IQ. (Never mind that suddenly IQ seems a noncontroversial measure of performance.) One reader has already gone beyond the silliness to ask for a copy of the original research. Hurray for scholars!
A more thoughtful analysis of the story may be found (where else) in a blog, here. Unfortunately, no comments or trackbacks on this site. Pity.
Gardner:
Perhaps you didn’t state your point clearly enough for me, but when you criticize the anonymity of the postings I think you’re criticizing one of the strengths of blogs–that readers are more likely to evaluate the argument rather than the arguer. Shouldn’t the remarks determine whether a voice is interesting? If I’m missing something here, please clarify it for me.
Steve, my thinking is that blogs derive much of their strength from personality, that elusive but compelling quality of “voice” that isn’t so distinctively present in newspapers, magazines, etc. If the blog postings are anonymous, I infer that the site doesn’t care much about voice or personality in the writing. Of course the remarks should determine whether a voice is interesting, but anonymous blogs take the personal element out of the mix altogether, for me anyway.
To put it another way, I want to know what a *person* is thinking, not “what is being thought.” The latter kind of information is vital, too, but I can get that directly from many other sources.
I’m thinking about contextualizing this move. It sounds like something between various newspaper blogs and Educause’s.