CNET's Charles Cooper notes that to his disappointment, most convention bloggers did not live up to the promise of insightful analysis:
Most of the blogging entries I have read ranged from the insufferably pedantic to the sublimely mediocre. There were exceptions, of course, but the see-me, hear-me tenor of their reporting was only exceeded by the vapidity of the banal commentaries peddled as analyses.
First, who was he reading? The ones I read were mostly quite good. Matt Welch and Tim Blair of Reason and Pat Belton of Oxblog did an exceptional job liveblogging the convention. In the article, Cooper does not mention a single blogger he read and provided no links to explicate what he was talking about. Partly, I think that this is precisely the problem with traditional journalism (CNET being an online version of it). They do not have to provide sources or link to entire articles or speeches they are quoting. They get to cherrypick what they print. Bloggers who do that, on the other hand, will have a difficult time getting high readership with that approach.
Second, what advantage does he see in the mainstream media coverage? Is he talking about MSNBC falling over itself to praise Kerry (by having Joe Trippi, Dee Dee Meyers, Carl Bernstein, Mike Barnacle, and Pitchfork Pat Buchanan, who has gone over the deep end of populism, serve as the pundits at the convention)? Or is he discussing the LA Times which provided such insightful editorializing as "John Kerry will be a great commander-in-chief because he served in Vietnam" (paraphrasing)? At least the bloggers who included banal reports of what happened were reporting on the facts rather than facts filtered through the pink-colored lenses of the liberal media (with pleasant surprises on the part of WaPo and NYT (see last post)).
UPDATE: David Appell relates similar sentiments as Cooper. InstaPundit asks, "compared to what?"