[A response to Oliver Kamm's ill-informed denunciation of political bloggers]

I find Mr Kamm’s argumentation somewhat myopic and mean-spirited. It has become fashionable for mainstream journalists (or those who aspire to the category) to snipe at bloggers, accusing us of various shortcomings, from narcissism (when such output is made available in the traditional medium of the printed volume, it is referred to as “autobiography”), to a lack of originality, or, as Mr Kamm phrases it, being “purely parasitic on the stories and opinions that traditional media provide”.

The latter contention betrays a rather unsavoury elitism as well as blithely ignoring the constraints within which bloggers operate (more of which in a moment).

I suspect that, these days, very few individuals purchase newspapers for their actual news content, which is more quickly and readily available on television and the internet. Newspapers cannot compete in terms of instantaneousness (admittedly, many subscribe to online editions, but these generally have the same format as the printed versions and therefore are a day late in comparison with, say, the BBC. This implies that many buy papers for their comment (and analysis) content (and, as time is a finite resource, in all likelihood buy the organ – deliberate singular – most likely to reflect their own sympathies, in other words, “the conclusions are pre-specified and targets selected”, the very source of their appeal and motivation for parting with cash).

The authors of comment pieces/regular columns in the most venerable papers possess a certain authority, cultural capital, if you will. They function as “manufacturers of public opinion”. Hardly surprising that they attract the attention of the “great unwashed” of the blogosphere, since by definition they are claiming superior insight, whether they acknowledge it explicitly or not. Taking them on and exposing the flaws in their writings or simply demolishing their views could be considered a rite of passage.

What rankles, I imagine, is that the bloggers are often devastatingly accurate in their criticisms without necessarily having received any formal training in the art of commercial journalism. Nobody is infallible and it cannot be pleasant to be reminded publicly of one’s shortcomings, but peer review or the sanctification of print does not automatically imply that your output is of inherently higher quality. It would be disingenuous and plain dishonest to maintain otherwise. Bloggers do not appreciate pomposity or being patronised.

In a blatant manifestation of snobbery, Mr Kamm lumps together all bloggers, as if we were a homogenous bunch of semi-articulate whingers, whereas many of us are more highly academically qualified than the targets of our ire. We simply didn’t go down the journalism route. Is that any reason to stifle debate? More pertinently, is that any reason for us to stifle our derision where it is obviously merited? Our creativity is irrepressible and refuses to be beaten down or belittled by individuals whose sense of entitlement derives from institutional recognition alone.

To conclude, a word on constraints. Far too many bloggers have been sacked for their online activity (to the extent that a new verb has been invented to encompass the phenomenon, “to dooce”). Anonymity is fragile, perhaps too much so for many to venture into the fray. I, for one, engage in self-censorship, voluntary muzzling myself, in order to protect my capacity to earn (without which I could not blog).

Compared with journalists, bloggers suffer both a recognition (as opposed to credibility) and a resources deficit, the second of which is by far the more pernicious. We are limited by income (which, with the exception of a happy few, does not come from writing, although to say so does not obliquely vindicate Mr Kamm: popularity is an elusive and capricious good and, to invoke the analogy of the best-seller, is, in itself no mark of calibre) and the amount of time left over from the day job which we can devote to our pursuit.

True, journalists had to serve an extended apprenticeship with long stints of unremunerated labour (which acts as a barrier to all but those with sufficient means to sustain themselves until success beckons, actual talent not being a factor, a sad state of affairs that even the newspapers recognised and indeed lamented in a flurry of breast-beating articles about the chronic lack of social mobility in today’s Britain in June 2006), but, once embraced into the professional ranks, they can invoke the prestige of the publication with which they are affiliated and bask in the satisfaction of its almost magical, door-opening properties. Once they have gained a certain standing, even prominent figures think twice about refusing an interview.

The real difference between bloggers and the newspaper commentariat is that, to modify Mr Kamm’s definition, the latter constitute “a self-selecting group of the politically motivated who have time on their hands and are rewarded (financially and with status) for their musings”.

[Some other responses to Kamm:

Tim Worstall

Mr Eugenides

Reactionary Snob

Pommygranate]