Higgins:

At least I can respect his opinion.  He thinks that the approach Fulmer uses is the wrong approach.  I can respect that, even if I can't agree.  But I would strongly advise him to take under consideration that he's never had to work with these kids or look them in the eyes.  It's very easy to turn Caesar's thumb down - Caesar never had to get to know the gladiators, either.

In short, with Higgins's argument, I think we all are missing far too much information to come down conclusively on the matter.  Maybe Higgins is closer to "the perfect solution" than I am or Fulmer.  Yet I cannot give any confidence to any opinion except Fulmer's, and we have to trust Hamilton to be the one to decide if Fulmer's doing a good job.

Exum:

"But the Internet, ..., is still unfathomable to me ..."

This hits directly to the issue of the journalistic hatred for blogs.  The Internet is not properly understood.  (He certainly doesn't understand Fark culture.)  That's ok.  Not everyone has to be internet-savvy.  But it's hard to justify the rest of the article with that piece in place.  In particular, it's hard to justify this stance when the issues he presents in favor of his stance are almost entirely blog-unrelated (e.g. from the 70s).

But as far as what's in the water in East Tennessee?  Why, we only sing about it all the time!  Why do you think it's one of our state songs?

But I'm willing to advance a hand to both of them.  I'd be perfectly willing to meet them at the Orange and White game so they can put a face to at least one blog-freak.  I'm willing to learn from them if they're willing to learn about me.

Exum has just taken the place, temporarily, of Stephen A. Smith. If you read what Smith was quoted as saying regarding bloggers, it was essentially the same thing Exum is saying.

I wrote a piece at my blog about Smith's comments, and I'm glad you brought this to our attention. It's clearly a prevailing attitude among the old-guard print media types that suggests their ignorance of the blogosphere.

They are hypocrites who are scared their voice will no longer be heard. The reality is, as bloggers have come to know, the voices of the past have become irrelevant. We can write just as well as they can offering a valid opinion and in most cases, a more objective point of view.

I'm not suggesting I do, but there are many well-written blogs out there that make the print media seem like "Showtime at the Apollo."

I have to disagree with hooper on one point. I'm not extending a hand to any of them. They can jump for all I care and the splat I hear will be the sound of a washed-up has-been I no longer have any use for.

Love,

MoonDog

I think the electronic media has a lot of the old media journalists concerned about their future.  Newspaper subscriptions are continually decreasing and have not been fully offset by online subscription services.  They seem to see it in the same way the Big Three of the auto industry saw the rise of Toyota; this new upstart adapts to the market faster, has a shinier product, and isn't encumbered by all overhead of the labor deals and pension plans.

The analogy isn't valid for the very reasons Joel points out, but the fear is much the same.  But heck, the blogosphere relies on the old media.  Where else do we get the juicy bits to talk about?  It's almost all old media or obtained in the same ways that old media gets their information.

But one ding-dong phoning or mailing a threat to a journalist before I was ever born has absolutely nothing to do with how I respond to journalists today.  To make that implication is to completely trivialize what makes the Internet unique.

When I check my news in the morning, I can use about 3-5  blogs to get all the links, commentary, cross-opinions, and you-name-its that I can handle to cover my interests.  It takes me maybe 15 minutes to be completely caught up on the day instead of the hour or so it would take to manually sift through the same exact links.  The blogs are usually even courteous enough to describe the link just enough to let me know if I even want to bother with it.

Now I really am looking forward to the O&W game.  This is a great thinker.

MDL, are you going, by any chance?

Maybe these old media types think bloggers are much like the commenters on the old media websites.  I'd not like us too, if I thought that was us.

This blogging blog sure is getting bloggy!

I'm not familiar with either Mr. Higgins' or Mr. Exum's usual work.  However, after reading both articles, Mr. Higgins comes across as plain ignorant.  His article seemed to be nothing more than a 'filler' piece necessary to waste space.

Although Mr. Exum was misguided in some of his information, I found his piece to be a good read.  He made some excellent points and came across as generally knowledgeable on his subject.  I did note several interesting things though "like, such as":

• Bloggers remain "faceless" for a reason -- so their readers don't have to stare at such an ugly mug, unlike the readers of Mr. Exum's columns.  Seriously, does one's face provide any additional crediblity?  (Oooh!  I know what you look like, so you must be speaking the truth!) That is, except when one's blogger of choice actually lands an MSM gig! (Next time, Joel just needs to display this" as his self-portrait!)
  
• He denegrates the "Fulmer for Sheriff" fark, but then posts it at the end of his article?  Huh?
  
• We've all heard (and laughed at) "Louie in Lewisburg" on the sports radio shows.  Most fans simply write this guy off as a loony and life goes on.  However, there will always be the few that can't differentiate the loonies from the normals.  This miscommunication is simply a fact of life, like I discussed last week.

Also, I'll be at the O&W Game getting my drink on and keeping it loose.  No nerd debates for me! :)