Fairness in blogging?

Since my last posting, the amount of posts on Hot Air has surged. As there are so many contributors, this is not surprising.

Some things I have noticed as a result of the previously discussed characteristics of the blog:

- many topics are ‘recycled’, and many are later ‘updated’, which makes it hard to keep track of what is happening on the site, but makes it easy for contributors to edit their posts without creating new ones. An example of this is a follow-up story about the Clintons and their riches, which seems to have been a popular topic, mentioned over a few days: ‘My superhuman task this morning; Update: The Clintons’ “unusual” tax returns’.

Photo taken from BBC Media Images

The posting is very typical of this site, as it mixes video content with the blogger’s own words. The blogger has obviously posted his opinions, received many comments, and was then able to update his post as soon as there was more information for him to write about. This increases the accuracy of his post for readers who may view it later, but makes it hard for other viewers to backtrack to his post in case of any updates. With the amount of posts each day, this is a major problem with blogs of this nature.

- Another thing which was not mentioned last time was the individual post descriptions, which provide an additional, short comment, which may or may not affect readership. I find that sometimes, they do not do anything for the article whatsoever, but that sometimes they offer a bit of humor/sarcasm/opinion before the reader actually gets to the article. Sometimes, they also respond to rhetorical questions which are given in the title of the posts, which adds to this idea of blogs being very opinionated. A lot of the time, however, you have to actually read the post before the descriptions make any sense.

In terms of the US election, there are still many frequent postings on this subject, from the trivial to the more serious, but almost always with a light approach. On April 5 there was a posting about namecalling in politics, and in particular, Obama acknowledging McCain as a ‘warmonger’.

Photo taken from Double Speak

In postings such as this, I am very impressed to see an attempt to balance opinions, as it can be so easy for people to just post their opinions and disregard all others.

In Ed Morrissey’s post: ‘Obama surrogate: McCain a “warmonger”; Update: McCain’s not a warmonger, says Obama camp’, though there is an opinion that Obama was calling McCain a warmonger, his update shows that in fact, Obama, though seemingly agreeing with the comment, did not actually say it. Morrissey then proceeded to state Obama’s opinion on the issue (even though it was given by his spokeswoman), which I felt added some credibility to his writing.

It can be argued that blogs are meant to be an individual's/group's opinions, and therefore, are allowed to be biased. But I think that though blogs are traditionally very opinionated outlets, it is nice to see some sort of an attempt at even-handedness by bloggers, and if anything, it makes the blog better.

A Breath of Hot Air

Hot Air: We Pick, You Click

Hot Air was founded by Michelle Malkin in 2006, and the site is about ‘fighting hot air with Hot Air’. After noticing that a lot of politically-oriented videos online were produced ‘by liberals for liberals’, she created this site as a go-between, to ‘bring ideological diversity’. It mainly presents itself as a videoblogging site, but much of it is still text.

The current topic which is most prevalent on this site is the election in the US. Bloggers seem to be posting about the election regularly, and very often. In April alone, at least 13 of the 30 blog postings are about the election and its candidates. This is despite the fact that the postings can be about anything, and usually revolve around current news items.

The style of the blog is very casual and conversational, as it appeals to its contributors who also double as its audience. Most comments are very agreeable, as the site reflects what the average person thinks...because mostly, it is written by them. The site has a tremendous amount of links, from affiliates to radio stations, to other blogs, satirical cartoons and pure online entertainment. In this way, it probably increases its traffic, by linking to other sites. Per day, it has an average of 346,910 page views.

In terms of the election, there are multiple postings per day regarding this topic, with eight postings on April 4. Though some topics are quite trivial, such as Obama being a smoker, others discuss more newsy issues, such as the Clintons and their riches, and scandals in the election campaign.

The postings make comments on the current political situation which may or may not be highlighted in the media, but which definitely put them out there. In ‘Another fundraiser scandal for Hilary?’, blogger Ed Morrissey says, “In 2006, the Democrats ran against the “culture of corruption”. In 2008, they look more like the party of corruption. Hillary may soon disappear from the presidential election, but her legacy will continue.”

The posting is very cynical of politics (playing into what seems to be a theme on this site) and of the Democratic Party in particular, and thus, very one-sided. However, as it is a blog, opinions are rife. Though, I must admit that it would be nice to know that they tried to make it more even-handed…

Most who commented on this blog agree with the opinion of the blogger, and note that it is not new to hear of corruption in politics. They bring additional perspective to the posting, citing previous cases where corruption has been apparent, some humorously, some more seriously, but they all make the same point.

But this is just one example of the political, US election-centric posts, and there are many more and most likely, many more to come as this topic is continually brought back to the table.