It is not unusual for a ‘proper’ journalist to complain about blogging, so I wasn’t going to comment on it. But one of the old cliches that Alibhai-Brown trots out is that blogging is somehow excessively time consuming. The article begins:

Where do blog writers find the time? Do they never go to the theatre, read books, make love?

I might well ask in response, “Where do theatre goers find the time? Do they not have a blog to maintain?” It’s good that Alibhai-Brown thinks we should all be going to the theatre. The thing is, I don’t know anybody who goes to the theatre regularly. That’s mostly because there isn’t a decent theatre anywhere near here, nor can anybody really afford it. Oh, and it’s really time consuming.

You see, everything in the world is time consuming. Cooking and eating a meal takes ages. Going to the gym uses up time. You never hear people saying, “Where do you find the time to go to the gym? Don’t you have anything better to do?”

When they first burst onto the scene, films, television and video games were all criticised for being time-consuming, spoddy pursuits. Some people still say they are, but they are a part of everyday life which many of us cannot imagine living without.

Blogging is the latest in the list. And just like watching films or television or playing games, blogging is an activity that you do in your spare time. It’s not as if I’ve ever said, “Oh no, I can’t go out tonight — I’ve got blogging to do.” People don’t phone into work saying, “Sorry, I can’t come in today; it’s that blog again.”

The only reason I’m writing this post is because I had some spare time. A little gap in my day needed filled. We all come across this from time to time. Some people like to read a book in these situations, which is good. Most people might sit in front of the television. If I wasn’t writing this then I would almost certainly be spending a couple of hours sitting in front of the idiot-box. But I’ve decided to write a post on my blog. Is there something wrong with that?

Of all the things that people find to do in their spare time, blogging is surely one of the most worthwhile. I have learned so much by both reading and writing blogs. For one thing it has opened my mind immensely. You really learn to appreciate other people’s viewpoints. I now have an understanding of opposing viewpoints which I would never have gained if I was just left to read newspapers or watch the television news.

Real, ordinary people expressing real, unfiltered opinions. How can you possibly be against such a thing? In any other sphere such a culture would be celebrated. Did Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticise, for instance, anti-Iraq war protestors for campaigning or expressing their views? I hardly think so. But because the debate amongst bloggers takes place on computers it simply must be nerdy and time-consuming; a preserve of pale men who never go outdoors and vanity publishers who only blog because they can’t get a proper writing job.

But here is the thing. Why should I trust (or pay to read) what Yasmin Alibhai-Brown or Polly Toynbee or Simon Jenkins or anyone else in the ‘commentariat’ ivory tower has to say? Not when I can read the most diverse range of opinions imaginable from ordinary people who are passionate about their views — all at the click of a mouse and for free.

This is why a lot of journalists — especially op-ed writers and suchlike — often complain about blogging. A lot of nonsense is spoken about ‘citizen journalism’. We need to get real here. Bloggers won’t usurp real journalists or the mainstream media. But bloggers can and do threaten the need for newspapers to have comment pages.

This very article in The Independent said — if I remember correctly (I can’t find out because you have to pay for the priviledge of having information in Indy towers) — that commentators are unsure exactly what qualifies them to be commentators, other than an interest in current affairs. Well look at us bloggers. We’re all interested in current affairs too. And we have the added bonus of not being stuck in an ivory tower. And of being free to read.

Before blogging came along I read the comment pages of newspapers quite often. Now I never do, because I can get all the opinion I want from bloggers. And I have found it to be a far more fulfilling experience than reading the same old tired writers in the dead tree press, whose banal opinions you can usually predict in advance.

Columnists are actually quite dangerous in my view. For some reason politicians are always fair game, but whenever the spotlight is turned onto the professional commentators themselves they throw up their arms in horror and write a kneejerk ill-informed piece criticising blogging.

But why shouldn’t columnists be held to account? In many cases they are just as influential and powerful as politicians. But nobody voted for these commentators. Nobody ever holds them to account, unless it is the odd paragraph here and there in the letters page — which is only included at the whim of an editor anyway. And you seldom see commentators getting properly stuck into a debate.

Even away from those who blog exclusively about current affairs, is there something so wrong about having an outlet to express yourself? To talk about what’s on your mind? An easy way of communicating with people? Having a Sarah blog? Because here is some headline news for Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: for a lot of people, blogging is great fun. It is as simple as that.

It should therefore not come as a surprise to anybody that the great unwashed are turning to blogging.

More good posts on Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s column at: Ministry of Truth, Bloggerheads, Not Little England.

My opinion on newspaper formats is this. Being a muesli-eating, hand wringing beardy liberal type, I of course think that the Berliner format is the best. It strikes a fine balance. It is not large enough to be painful to hold and it is not small enough to squeeze out all of the stories in favour of a sensationalist headline.

Mind you, I do prefer the tabloid size to the broadsheet. Not that this is a problem for me, as all of the tabloids are either not really aimed at me (The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Star…) or are unbelievably dull (The Scotsman, The Times, The Independent).

I have had free copies of all of those three papers thrust into my hands at university, and I’ve never been tempted to buy a copy of them the next day. You would have thought they’d choose interesting editions to give away to students, but no. I don’t like any of the daily papers anyway, so I guess I’m just too picky.

Anyway, here is the point of this post. A paragraph from that MediaGuardian article (remember that? I almost forgot) about the possibility of a Telegraph lite:

The cut-down compact – half the size of the broadsheet and half the cost – would also allow the paper to find out how much its older readership is antagonistic to a compact Telegraph. A Telegraph “lite” may tempt Daily Mail and Metro readers.

Aaargh. No! Nobody buys the Metro. The Metro serves many functions. Informing the public isn’t one of them.

The Metro is a free paper that people pick up in the station in case they are caught short and there is no bogroll in the toilet. I bet most people don’t even realise they’re picking up the Metro in their bleary-eyed state on a dark morning, half-asleep. I assume Associated Newspapers actually intend to perform a public service by distributing the paper, because if you weren’t asleep you probably will be by the time you’ve read some of it. This ensures that the British public arrives at work well-rested and fully refreshed, all set for a productive day’s work.

I hope the people at the Telegraph Group aren’t getting their hopes up by aiming for Metro readers. Unless, of course, the Telegraph lite is soft, strong and very, very long. They are scuppered already though — only the broadsheet is very, very long.

Anyway, I’ve never quite been able to make my mind up about this smoking ban. For purely selfish reasons, of course, I couldn’t wait for this smoking ban to go ahead. Too often it simply isn’t worth going out if you’re going to spend the rest of the day stinking of smoke. I will probably end up going down the pub more — I’ve already accepted one invitation that I probably wouldn’t have prior to Sunday. So instead of being on the fags I’ll be on the booze.

I’m pretty sure most people are in favour of the ban. I saw Jack McConnell on the television the other day going on about how young people in particular are heavily in favour of the ban. For once, I think he’s right. Maybe it’s just because I mainly associate with student lefties, but I can only think of one person who I’ve met in the flesh who was against the ban.

As a generation, we youngsters have had it hammered home to us pretty relentlessly. And not just by the government. Smoking family friends and relatives warn you never to start. Meanwhile, parents would disown you if you did. We know, we know: smoking will make you die horribly and slowly and those people who make you breathe in their second-hand smoke are absolute bastards.

There is just a feeling of inevitability about it all. The tide is very much against the smoking industry, and nobody is even attempting to turn the tide back in the other direction any more. Smoking in adverts is gone, smoking adverts themselves are gone, smoking in public places and workplaces is gone. And most people (particularly young people) seem pretty ambivalent about it. A friend told me he was half-expecting to see people smoking five at a time, but when I was out on Saturday I didn’t see any evidence of last-minute pre-ban defiance. It all felt very normal, in fact, as if the collective response was just, “Yeah, smoking ends tomorrow. Big deal.”

Given all this, though, I’m surprised the government even needs to step in. If there’s such a high demand for smoke-free environments, why aren’t employers and pub managers prohibiting smoking themselves? I heard that smoke-free pubs existed prior to the ban, but I certainly wouldn’t have been able to tell you where. I’d be amazed if there were any in Kirkcaldy, although I heard that there were three in Edinburgh (still not a lot though when you consider how many pubs there must be in Edinburgh).

I guess businessmen are just really risk-averse and are afraid to be the first to make that kind of decision. Just look at how all the broadsheets have turned to tabloid one-by-one. They’ve been banging on for as long as I can remember about how going tabloid will increase the number of readers because broadsheets are bloody ridiculous and give everybody a sore back. Yet none of the broadsheets made the switch, until a couple of years ago when The Independent had no other choice than to take a risk. Surprise surprise, more people began to read the Indy and then almost everybody else followed suit soon afterwards. See? It wasn’t so hard after all.

Anyway, back to the pub. There was the predicted huddle of smokers standing at the doorway, despite the fact that it was absolutely pissing it down today, but only at one of the four times I found myself passing through the door. It wasn’t the most pleasent tunnel I’ve ever been through, but it was a hell of a lot better than contending with a foggy pub for the entire duration of your visit.

Was the smoke cloaking other smells for all those years? The jury is out. It didn’t feel weird when I first walked in — everybody did turn round and stare at me and the pub did still smell like a pub. I reckoned the new carpet played a part in that smell, though some said it just smelled like stale beer. At our particular corner it smelled of old man and old man urine. Nice. I might have marginally preferred the smoke in that instance. But back home, and you wouldn’t have known I was in a pub because my clothes didn’t stink of smoke, so that is a major plus point.

All-in-all, I have personally enjoyed the new improved smoke-free Scotland. But I think the ban has gone too far. For instance, The Devil’s Kitchen has had a couple of posts detailing how our favourite television characters will no longer be able to light up. And according to The Sunday Times, “Even a request to permit herbal cigarettes has been rejected.” Isn’t that going a bit too far?

Will Howells also wrote about the regulations that businesses now face. There I wrote a comment about my experience at the train station.

…when I used the toilet at Waverley Station recently it was clear that somebody had just been smoking in it. It’s like high school or something. My clothes stank for the rest of the day.

I wonder if the smoking ban is merely going to lead people to smoke in public places secretly rather than stop smoking in public places altogether…

Maybe I’m missing something really obvious here, but I would have preferred a licensing system. If you have to have a license to sell alcohol, why not have a licensing system to give people the choice of both smoking and non-smoking pubs?

One last thing about my trip to the pub. I thought I was given a counterfeit fiver in my change. But then I realised that it was a Jack Nicklaus fiver! I’m surprised any of these are still in circulation.

When David Farrer wrote about them when they were first issued they were going at £102+. They mostly still seem to be going for more than £5. Although if I were to use this note to pay for something it would only be worth a fiver. And it made up £5 of my change. If I think about this much more my head will probably detatch itself and walk off Beachy Head.