So.
I’ll put my loudest complaints first, so we (love the Royal We) can end this post on a high note. Curiously, my biggest issue is with someone who has the least to say: Andrew Sullivan.
I’m sure that, at some level, the ability to quickly compile a series of quotes from reputable sources relevant to a central issue is a useful and impressive skill. Proudly placing these quotes below yourbyline, Andrew, is an example of synthesis skill, not writing. I finished every article confused about whether any of the blue boxes (filled with the words of anyone other than Sullivan) was placed around the author’s opinions by mistake – Maybe I misread? Maybe the next article will redeem this collection of sequenced copy-pastes?
Nope.
Now, this being said, Andrew Sullivan has probably run out of things to say, as he turns out a stunning amount of content per day. It’s clear that he has a passion for current events, or the number of posts surely would have dwindled. Even his ability to find (new?) material for each subsequent blog and keep an engaged readership speaks to his intellect, if not his ability to inject a voice into his blog.
Several of the other more syndicated “blogs” shared the lack of a unique or personable voice, but for different reasons than obscuring authorship with outside quotations. While it’s somewhat unreasonable to give a critique of a blog as extensive (and multi-authored) as the NYTimes Wellness Blog in such a short space, it’s certainly worth mentioning that some of the authors do not appear to have been told they’re writing for a blog. Some “blog posts” read exactly like articles from a newspaper, lacking the conversational tone so characteristic of a blog.
Zinsser (On Writing Well) would also disapprove of the treatment science receives in a few of the front-page articles; rather than leading into the blog with a compelling personal connection, the authors fall victim to a common journalistic trap – “Researchers at blanket blank have shown.” Others at the Wellness blog give exactly what I expect and want from the platform, namely Suleika Jaouad, whose posts about living with cancer as a young adult deserve more than a perfunctory sentence in this review.
As far as science reporting goes, Gizmodo may disappoint Zinsser, but the intended audience for a tech blog is allowed to be more niche (and less dependent upon personal interest lead-ins) than a general readership. In the case of Gizmodo, the readership consists of highly opinionated tech-geeks whose desire for new material on consumer products (if you don’t care about smartphones, close Gizmodo and never come back) is only matched by their desire to argue in the comments below each post. Possibly because of the specificity of the blog, the authors don’t need to work hard to generate spirited conversation – The readers are out in force, and the bloggers (who all come off like the readers, but with bylines) know just what they want to read. Zinsser would be proud of the bloggers for their enthusiasm; they write about what they’re interested in, and it shows.
With Gizmodo thoroughly summed up, we’re left with two – David Roberts at the Grist, and Howard Fineman at the Huffington Post. Fineman and Roberts share a characteristic I value in these blogs, and which NYT and the Daily Beast left me without: A voice. There is a continuity of character and personality between posts, there is personal opinion and analysis (without being drowned by quotes), and I can imagine intelligent, real people typing on the other end. If Fineman wasn’t a contributor to the HuffPo guide to blogging, he could have been – The dry humor and political wit come off like the thoughts of a longtime political journalist finally given free rein to express them without employment anxieties (perhaps that’s really the case), a writer model naturally attracted to the Huffington Post.
I love the picture of David Roberts at the top of his page – The beard and the humorous eyebrow raise might as well be an artist’s representation of his writing style. As far as I am concerned, this man avidly reads the news and follows the big (and not-so-big) happenings in politics and national interest, then sits down and tells us what he thinks about it. That’s it. And that’s what the HuffPo Guide and On Writing Well tell us that blogging/nonfiction editorials can be. Just a guy talking about what he thinks and offering an intellectual but accessible perspective on what’s what in the world. When I have a beard, maybe that’s what I’ll do.