Nick Lewis: The Blog

Chapter 1 of a yet to be named guide on writing in the blogosphere.

In general, bloggers are terrible writers. They may spellcheck,proof-read, and provide sound, well-structured arguments. However, as any honest writing instructor knows, A+ papers are often excruciatingly dull. Yet, a paper that receives an F's can be so funny that the instructor can't help but but put it on the refrigerator of the faculty lounge. In the abstract sense, the F paper could be considered good writing in the blogosphere. Nevermind that the writer made a fool of themselves.

If one considers the number of 14 to 15 year old's with blogs, it becomes clear we are entering an era where there are going to be a few too many public writers. A few self-serving pundits have suggested that this will result in "setting the bar low", and that anyone with a blog can now smear good decent hardworking journalists, and be heard. However, I'd argue that "the bar" (to borrow their overused, prefabricated figure of speech) has been raised.

When millions of people are talking, the end effect is almost no one being heard. To state the obvious, you must make an effort to stand out.

Styles of Writing to Avoid

Below, I've excerpted passages from real blogs on a largely random basis. My intention is not to showcase the worst, but rather to provide everyday examples of writing that should be avoided.

Rule I: avoid conventional talking points, and political language

For a long time liberals refused to admit that there was a liberal bias in the mainstream media (i.e. CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News, etc, etc, etc). Now liberals like Walter Cronkite are grudgingly admitting that most reporters are in fact liberal but it really doesn’t matter because talk radio and Fox News are conservative so it all balances out (for my previous comments on liberal media bias see here)...

Without having read the author's "previous comments" on this subject, I can say with absolute certainty that he'll argue this: liberals are bad, the media is liberal, therefore the media is bad. Personally, I'm suprised the author had the balls to assume people were interested in his previous comments. His promiscious use of the word liberal makes his writing look like a satire.

Whenever one resorts to meaningless political words such as "fascist", "liberal", "neo-con","leftists", one runs the risk of no longer having to think about what they write. And in all cases, lack of thought makes your writing uninspiring, stale, and worst of all:common and predictable. I suspect a thoughtful Republican would have found his polemic just as dull as I found it stupid. I rarely write about politics these days because frankly, I have nothing thoughtful to say on the subject that hasn't already been said. (continued tomorrow)