I don’t like to dwell on Iain Dale’s poll. As Longrider pointed out in the comments, it is of no real importance anyway. However, the first of Iain Dale’s category lists — media blogs — got me thinking. Why are there so few Scottish media blogs?

As far as I can make out, the list contains two blogs based on Scottish politics run by mainstream media organisations. One is the rather good Blether with Brian from the BBC’s Brian Taylor. The other is The Herald’s politics blog (though going by Iain Dale’s list it is only Douglas Fraser’s entries that meet with approval). I have to say that while I was very aware of Brian Taylor’s blog, I was only vaguely aware that The Herald had a political blog.

You might think that two entries in the top 30 of Iain Dale’s poll is not too bad. But when you look more closely at some of the other entries, things don’t look so good for the Scottish media. Wales has no fewer than four blogs in the list: David Cornock, Betsan Powys, Vaughan Roderick and 07:25 to Paddington.

Three of those come from the BBC Wales politics department. In Scotland, Brian Taylor is the only BBC political journalist that I know of that has a blog. Even then, I suspect that Brian Taylor was asked by BBC News Online to start his blog. Blogs by the political editors of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all started within a very short period of time of each other, as I recall.

What interests me more though is the poor showing of commercial media outlets. Wales is represented by a blog from WalesOnline. Also on Iain Dale’s list is a local blog run by David Ottewell of the Manchester Evening News.

So where are the Scottish media blogs? I don’t think I would be alone in saying that I think The Herald’s blogs are rather limp and half-hearted. Of late, Douglas Fraser has only updated once every fortnight or so (although, yes, I know it’s the summer — but there have been a lot of Scottish political stories too). Robbie Dinwoodie is much the same.

Scotsman.com is even worse. It has no proper blogs. It does, from time to time, call articles blogs, but they have no permalinks and no comments — just a normal page with some date headings. Worse still, many opinion pieces are behind a paywall, which means that bloggers — even if they can be bothered to fork out to read it in the first place — will seldom link to them and engage in the debate.

I doubt things will improve in this area. Ever since Johnston Press took it over, they have seemed determined to treat Scotsman.com like it is the website for a tiny local newspaper. The perfectly good website was replaced with Johnston Press’s own template which is used for all of their local papers, just with content from The Scotsman shoehorned in. This kind of approach to the web, which will be an increasingly important part of The Scotsman’s business in the future, does not bode well.

I am sure the Sunday Herald used to have a separate site for blogging and comments. I don’t think I imagined it, but I can’t find any sign of it now. Mind you, I’m not surprised — it wasn’t very good.

It needn’t be like this. Despite claims from some that bloggers and the MSM are competing, this is simply not true. Blogs and the MSM are complementing. There are plenty of excellent, high-profile blogs run by media outlets based in London. The Spectator’s Coffee House, The Times’s Comment Central, The Telegraph’s suite of politics blogs, The Guardian’s politics blog and Comment is free, Nick Robinson and many other blogs from the BBC.

And Iain Dale’s list shows that they don’t have to be based in London, with respected blogs coming from other parts of the country. Why is there not more coming from Scotland?

It has to be said that the honourable exception is Brian Taylor. He seems to enjoy blogging and it is certainly a great place to catch up with recent political shenanigans. But what about everyone else?

I hate all blogging awards except for the ones I am nominated for. That means I hate all of them (apart from James Higham’s Blogpower awards!).*

One of the biggest problems is that there are just so many of them. The ones I always saw as the most important were the Bloggies — but perhaps that is just because they are the ones I came across first. Besides, I’ve never been nominated for them, so I hate them.

It’s a bit like degrees, as we have been discussing a few posts back. There are so many blogging awards that most of them mean zilch. So it’s quite funny to see Neil Clark acting as though he is some kind of cyber-god for winning a particularly flawed poll.

The full details are over at The Wardman Wire. Because you could vote multiple times (once a day, apparently), Neil Clark encouraged his readers to vote multiple times. Nineteen times in five days, to be exact.

Then when he won he went over to his patch on Comment is free and declared a blogging revolution — hilariously — “because my views are more in tune with ordinary people than most in the blogosphere”!

The only time I had previously come across Neil Clark before was when he wrote a particularly odious piece on Comment is free about the campaign to grant asylum to Iraqi employees for British forces. It rightly drew widespread condemnation from bloggers across the spectrum. (More on the Iraqi employees campaign here.)

However, this is perfectly in tune with his views on foreigners in general, so it seems. Mr Eugenides has pointed out that (as well as being a defender of Slobodan Milošević) Neil Clark is a candidate for the British People’s Alliance, which has among its policies the following:

The British People’s Alliance is also determined to expose, to halt, and to reverse the deliberate importation of a new working class whose members understand no English except commands, know nothing about workers’ rights in this country, can be deported if they step out of line, and (since they have no affinity with any particular part of this country) can be moved around at will, so that the old working class can be told to go hang, taking with it its unions, its minimum wage, its health and safety regulations, and so forth.

The British People’s Alliance is determined to expose, to halt, and to reverse the enforced bilingualism or multilingualism that transfers economic, social, cultural and political power to a bilingual or multilingual elite, so that those who are or will be excluded are or will be the English-speaking working class, black and white.

This is supposed to be a left-wing party, but it sounds more like the language of the BNP (complete with “some of my best friends are black” statement at the end). But it just goes to show — yet again — that the difference between left and right really is negligible. After all, big government is big government, and once it controls one part of the economy then control of other parts of our lives is not far behind.

Rather than left or right, what really matters is whether you are a liberal or an authoritarian. And ballot stuffer Neil Clark certainly isn’t a liberal.

(I will expand on my views on liberalism and statism in two separate posts soon.)

* I did actually win an award today, and coincidentally it was in a post about Neil Clark.

I used to be a big fan of comments, or at least the idea of comments. I thought that news websites should allow comments on every story. It seemed like quite a democratic way of doing things, to allow people to discuss an article, point out biases and the like.

However, when I thought that, I was forgetting one thing: most people are bloody morons.

And here is the unfortunate thing for the brave MSM outlets that have decided to allow comments of some form on their website. The number of morons as an overall percentage of participants in a comments thread is directly proportional to the popularity of a website (I’ve not done a scientific study on this, you understand. But we all know it’s true).

It is not difficult to understand the reasons why. Nincompoops can’t be bothered to find any smaller sites. And why bother when you have the opportunity to appear on the website of a very big newspaper or broadcaster and expose to the world your shoddily thought out arguments and even worse English.

There is bad news for us bloggers as well though. Because big blogs also have comment threads containing rivers of word-poo, comment spew and general all-out arse drizzle. Just think of the bigger British blogs. Iain Dale? Guido Fawkes? Harry’s Place? You need to put on a hygiene mask before clicking onto the comments sections.

Smaller bloggers like myself have it lucky. We might not have an audience of thousands, but at least generally good comments are posted here. I guess there is probably a “sweet spot” — probably a few hundred unique visitors per day — where the comments sections are generally good (if sometimes a tad on the short side). I am lucky enough to be there at the moment.

James Higham also counts among those lucky medium-sized bloggers. He has brought to my attention this article one The Age’s website.

Honestly, I’ve had enough.

Enough of the flaming, the trolling, the moderation, the spam, the ‘who’s-got-more’ syndrome, the inanity and the sheer stupidity behind allowing them on sites like theage.com.au.

They devalue our content, insult much of our readership, piss off our advertisers, waste massive amounts of our time and place us at an enormous legal risk.

It is all true. The Guardian’s Comment is free might be celebrated for… something or other. But it didn’t take long for it to gain a reputation of being a loon magnet.

Scotsman.com is also particularly bad. I often find myself scrolling down to read the comments, but I really don’t know why. They are always utter shit. Reading it is just a form of punishment. Do those people have two brain cells between them all to rub together? Doubtful.

I do often wonder if the high heid yins rather regret ever allowing comments on their website. It is an embarrassment to their newspaper and to the nation (ironic given that most of the commenters are nationalists).

Of course, if they ever took the comments away they would be accused of suppressing free speech and avoiding debate and so on. They are now stuck with the situation, having to persuade their advertisers to be associated with those rivers of comment-shit.

It would not surprise me if the other papers were in the same situation. I’ve had a glance on The Herald’s website, but I don’t think I have the stomach to look any further. I have learnt about Bentham’s thoughts at university you know.

Of course, the exponent of the “shit comments on an MSM / popular website” phenomenon is the BBC’s Have Your Say section. Oh my goodness. Have Your Say is so bad that it has now has a blog dedicated to ridiculing it day in, day out.

spEak You’re bRanes is written by a brave person who goes through the pain of reading Have Your Say for the benefit of our entertainment. It has unveiled the different classes of commenter, from those with delusions of grandeur to armchair generals to good old racists.

Every person with any power behind the website of a media organisation should read this blog before allowing readers to leave comments to let themselves know what they are in for. It will be like dipping the bottom of every webpage on their site into an unflushed toilet.

Still, they should not be discouraged from allowing some kind of user-generated responses on their website. The problem is very easy to solve. It has been implemented by many newspapers. The answer is at the bottom of this post, just above the comments. And it is at the end of that piece on The Age website: Technorati widgets.

This has several advantages over comment sections. Morons would have to go to the bother of setting up their own blog. Although setting up a blog is dead easy, it requires much more effort than vomming up some words into a box, which is all they currently have to do.

Also, loons would be two clicks away from the bright lights of the popular / MSM website, which will surely take a lot of the incentive away.

And, as The Age’s James Farmer points out, the conversation would almost certainly be better than what we currently have.

So why not just do it? I can understand that it might be difficult to remove comments sections, due to the risk of being burnt at the stake by all the loons who currently live there. But why can, for instance, the BBC not have a little box of responses via Technorati next to each news story (complete with “The BBC is not responsible for blah blah blah…”, of course)?

First of all, I am so sorry sorry sorry for writing this post. I thought I had grown out of writing about blogging, but it’s just a bad habit; an itch you have to scratch. Clearly I have had a lot of thoughts about blogging since whenever the last time I wrote about it was. As such this is an embarassingly long and rambling post. Apologies. Anybody who reaches the end gets a sweetie.

Click for more »

I’m a little bit confused by this Comment is free malarky. I get the whole “Bleeeargh! Newspapers! Old media! Adapt or die!” thing. But The Guardian has been doing blogs for ages. So what’s new? What’s the big thing? What’s all the fuss about?

I read somewhere that they’ve got over 200 people signed up to be writing for ‘Comment is free’. But why weren’t they blogging in the first place? Couldn’t they just have got George Galloway to write some stuff for Newsblog, or Mark Lawson to write something for Culture Vulture?

There’s been a blaze of hype for ‘Comment is free’, but I don’t even know what it is meant to be. It’s being called a blog. I don’t think I’m the sort of person that goes on about what is and isn’t a blog (although I strongly feel that a comment section is half of what a blog should be all about). And I don’t have a problem with the ‘mainstream media’ climbing aboard the bandwaggon. But it doesn’t feel much like a blog to me.

The design is lovely — in fact, it serves as yet another reminder of just how creaky the old Guardian Unlimited design is these days. But if you’re looking for something a bit bloggy, prepare to be confused. The lion’s share of the screen is given over to ‘Editor’s picks’, which I guess is fair enough. With over 200 writers, it will probably be quite easy to miss notable entries. But at the moment there is a massive illustration in the way. Is it going to be there forever? On my monitor, it takes up about half of the browser window’s height. It pissed me right off the first time I visited.

In the top right-hand corner we’re given links to columns that were written for the dead tree edition. You can’t post comments to them, which makes this part of ‘Comment is free’ little different to the old Comment & Analysis (or whatever they renamed it for the Berliner redesign) section. The ‘blog’ — the chronologically ordered list of posts — is shoehorned into a tiny column on the left. It really does seem like the blog idea has been sidelined.

As for the comments section itself, you have to jump through hoops to register for it — although this seems like an attempt to prevent spam / flaming / shite comments / etc. But why can’t you link back to your own blog? I am struggling to think of any other blog that has a comments facility and doesn’t let you do this, and Guardian Unlimited’s other blogs let you do this. This is a mistake — communication between blogs is part of what makes the ‘blogosphere’ the buzzing thing that it is. At least a link to Technorati results is displayed though, so that is something.

And another thing. Why is Steve Bell’s ‘If…’ in there? What’s that got to do with it? Why isn’t it just in the cartoons section?

I don’t think I get it. The introductory post begins:

Welcome to Comment is free, the first collective comment blog by a British newspaper website.

So Gamesblog, Organ Grinder and all of The Guardian’s other blogs weren’t ‘collective comment blogs’ (whatever that is)? Apart from the swish design and the dizzying number of writers, I don’t understand what the difference is. And now that we have this massive ‘Comment is free’ überblog, why are all the old blogs continuing?

What I would really like to see is a comments section appended onto every single item published on Guardian Unlimited, although apparently this is only a matter of time. Makes me wonder once again, though, what the big difference about ‘Comment is free’ actually is.

Still, all head-scratching aside, this must be welcomed. The Guardian seems to be making a legitimate attempt at getting its writers to have a proper discussion with its readers. That is a real step forward. Less than year ago Mark Lawson wrote an article deriding blogs. Today he’s writing for one.

So my final verdict? We’ll wait and see, although for now it’s a tentative thumbs-up. I just need to work out what it actually is.