The Death of Alpha Blogging?

The Economist’s More Intelligent Life asks, “Are blogs a waste of top people’s time?” The question, and the barely-veiled conjecture, is insulting. They continue:

“Free Exchange, the Economist’s economics blog, argues that top-class academic bloggers could probably make better use of their time producing original academic research, and leaving more dedicated bloggers to do the blogging about it …”

Then,

“Very good economists could produce very good research, and tolerable bloggers could analyse and blog about that research for those interested in reading about economics, and all would benefit.”

Which certainly got my goat.

There is a good offering of pro and con, and the piece ends with:

“Which isn’t to say that I wish any academic economists to leave off blogging—there is value in smart writing not meant for journal publication. I would simply hope that Mr Rodrik might have a bit more faith in the market, and in the humble collection of bloggers doing their best to write about it.”

My response, while I’ll admit was hasty, I stand by:

“Two things, both surprising and disappointing: (1) That an economics publication would look at blogging as a ”zero-sum“ game is ludicrous. This is not an either/or issue. One could blog and produce ”original academic research“. In fact, that marriage makes the best blogs: writing about what you are writing about. (2) The choice of ”tolerable bloggers“ was a poor one. Exceptional bloggers exist, and they certainly ”could analyse and blog about that research.“ With all due respect, I would invite The Economist and Free Exchange to spend some more time investigating and understanding the importance and worth of blogs - and blogging, before insulting the very medium they are attempting to join.”

Thoughts?



I welcome your comments, or, feel free to email me. Why not take a look around? If you like what you see, why not add me to your blogroll? Or, subscribe to my RSS feed? Or both. Thanks.




Tags: , , , , ,


About this entry