This is actually very helpful for me. I never understood the anger toward bloggers. Some blogs are better than the MSM.
As Jim said in the post you cited, “I have no complaint if a good conservative blogger posts his own material to FR, not as an excerpt to drive hits and discussion back to his blog, but rather to impart useful information to OUR readers and to promote and join in on the discussion and conservative activism HERE on FR.”
So, I’m going to assume that even a *looooong* article on a blog would be welcomed on the ‘bloggers’ section, as long as it was published in full.
(I prefer to post experts whenever I do post anything because I think that it’s polite to give credit where credit is due. And many times, I can’t tell what’s a blog and what’s considered a legit source.)
I guess that where I’ve always been confused is that I don’t know what the hell a blog really is anymore.
The definition of a ‘blog’ is “a regularly updated website or web page, typically one run by an individual or small group, that is written in an informal or conversational style.”
That’s not the same thing as someone who’s done the research and written an article. That’s more journalism than an informal conversation.
I think that we’re in a transitional phase and, right now, lines are blurring. Even Jim said, “But, of course, as some blogs are definitely better than most others and some are much better than your typical mainstream news sources, we soon allowed certain blogs to be posted regularly to the news section.”
So who's angry?
"So, I’m going to assume that even a *looooong* article on a blog would be welcomed on the ‘bloggers’ section, as long as it was published in full."
Check out this "looooong" blog post.
Then notice the number of "angry" complaints that follow in the comments.
"(I prefer to post experts (sic) whenever I do post anything because I think that it’s polite to give credit where credit is due. And many times, I can’t tell what’s a blog and what’s considered a legit source.) I guess that where I’ve always been confused is that I don’t know what the hell a blog really is anymore."
OK, it's my turn to be confused.
In what way is excerpting a matter of "giving credit where credit is due?"
Posting in full is giving credit to the FReepers who support this forum.
A needless excerpt for hits is a slap in their collective face.
"That’s not the same thing as someone who’s done the research and written an article. That’s more journalism than an informal conversation."
By your definition most blogs being pimped on the net these days don't qualify as "journalism." They tend to be "The News" rehashed, reworded and pimped for profit. (Clarification - I have no idea whether the article that is the subject of this thread falls into that category. I won't know until it's posted here in full. I have had enough of viruses, adware, tracking software and doing sysrestore to get myself back online after visiting excerpted "blogs.")
"Even Jim said, “But, of course, as some blogs are definitely better than most others ..."
That is absolutely true. It is also true that the portion of the blogosphere that falls into this category is quite small.
Hypothetical situation:
A friend throws a party. A lot of people you don't know are there. Many of them have freely brought food and drinks to share. A stranger arrives, bringing a couple gallons of Kool-Aid. He refuses to tell you anything but his first name and wants you to try his Kool-Aid and come with him to the parking lot.
What are the chances?