Friday, December 16, 2005

Blog Bashing Food Fight

Apparently, the SJ-R snark attacks on blogs went to yet another new level this week. Marie at Disarranging Mine has details:

In a separate item in Wednesday's paper, there's an almost obscene inference that blogs are not to be trusted. Obscene, because it's as if in one breath the writer is making love to blogs, and in the next breath attempts to strip them naked in front of the whole world. One might be wondering where this obscenity occurred in the newspaper. It was in the food section, of all places.

The article is entitled "I eat, therefore I blog," with the sub-heading, "Want to read a restaurant rant? Particularly fond of bacon? You’ll find that and more online."

The writer got a local blogger, Iggy, to make some comments for the article. Also, the article even quotes a nice portion of an entry from Look Back Springfield about the old Chick-fil-A restaurant.

Strangely, the article ends with this italicized footnote:

*Blogs may contain opinions or language that may be considered inappropriate by some viewers. The blogs listed do not reflect the opinions of or the State Journal-Register. The blogs listed are not affiliated or associated with the State Journal-Register and

I've never seen such a disclaimer in the newspaper before.

Nor have I. Here's the link to the article, by the way.

That is indeed a very odd disclaimer. Does the paper make similar disclaimers about TV shows, other print publications or movies? Hint: that’s a rhetorical question.

I’m not sure what’s going on here. On the one hand, several SJ-R writers have been kind enough to publicize a number of local blogs and on the other hand some seem to feel a need to diminish them. Or something. Maybe these things are just growth pains as the paper makes a genuine effort to recognize and even integrate a wee bit with the local online community. The SJ-R’s own website has improved greatly recently in what it provides and even live-blogged the recent Springfield City Council smoking ban vote. Like I said, I’m not sure what’s going on.

Update: To be clear, the article itself, written by Amanda Reavy, I think is an interesting one and is kind to blogs. It's the disclaimer some of us find objectionable.

1 comment:

JeromeProphet said...

Why don't you email the author of that Sj-R article, and ask precisely why it was felt that disclaimer was needed?

Then post the answer here.

If they refuse to correspond (answer) then we have a story in that, since it shows that they don't want bloggers to fact check after all.

They pushed out their pawn, it's your move now buddy.