David Bollard on Blogging: Pomposity Rules at the Sunday Times

Rarely as it occurs, I am almost speechless as I read Bollard's article, or whatever one might call it. What a pompous S.O.B. His accompanying photograph -- cigar in hand, droll expression -- give further credence to the high esteem in which he holds himself.

At the same time I almost have to admire him, for writing something as scathing as he has and knowing what ire he would draw from 70 million bloggers all over the world.

David Bollard is a pompous ass, of course, for insinuating in the very first sentence of his column that he and Fred Khumalo were the first bloggers on the Internet and for that matter, practically invented journalism itself. Thank God he didn't.

Most distressing about his point of view is his concept that only "those who could get a job in journalism" should be writing. Had we shackled the presses or pens of such rank journalistic amateurs as Benjamin Franklin and other seditious revolutionaries, the freedom to print such would have been much longer in coming -- and put us who-knows-where today.

Many of those 70 million blogs will never be awarded for literary accomplishment -- but whomever said any of them are looking for awards? That the blog allows and encourages more literary participation from the average citizen -- how could anyone in his or her right mind, especially a journalist, see something wrong with that?

Bollard asks, "Are there really 70 million bloggers out there hoping that their writing talents will be recognised....?" No. There ARE, however, most of 70 million people out there hoping that they might make a difference. . . change an opinion. . . get an opinion. . . .bring hope to someone. . . or any of 70 million other reasons. We just aren't content to settle for passing through this world entirely silently or anonymously.

As for periodicals having to abide by "rules," I guess Bollard has missed the freely distributed publications that generally go against the moral integrity of 99 percent of the population. But there are many more people -- a good many of them residing in Bollard's own milieu -- who spew the same kind of venom live and in person.

Bollard's stance throughout this dreck points to self-pity and perhaps. . . fear? Why doth he protest so much? Perhaps because he feels himself becoming less and less significant in his little newspaper cubby as the world grows and changes beyond his abilty to understand or accept it, and worse, stay in the game of it.

Last but certainly not least, I take the opinions of a wealthy, white-collar white man in South Africa with an almost invisible grain of salt.