The Trouble With Blogs

Hindman makes a valid argument about why blogs are not democratizing politics by showing  political blogs that are widely read are published by white, middle aged, highly educated, males. I must admit this argument and fact, has never occurred to me. 

For me, the most common conversation about the internet, and blogging in particular is the beauty of it in the sense that anyone and everyone can have their voice be heard. However, the reality is that anyone and everyone can express their voice, but if its heard (or read in this case) is a different story. 

I think there are a couple of reasons for this. 

One, is that there are tons and tons of blogs out there and a single person only has so much time in a day and so many interests and therefore not every blog will be read. 

As far as political blogs go I think there is one major factor that may help explain why certain blogs get the readership that they do: credentials. 

I think that in the internet era, at least for me, there is always an issue of skepticism. I need a reason as to why I can and should trust the content that I am reading or watching and I think that the best way to trust your source is if you know that source has the credentials to be writing what they write.

There is a lot out there to read, and we can't believe everything so we have to look at people who should know what they are talking about and have a reason to be valid in what they publish. That is why I think primarily readers read blogs of highly educated people. The white male part, I think is a societal faux pas that unfortunately still resonates in politics. 

With that said, I do not largely follow politics or read political blogs - not for the want to be deemed ignorant - but because I have find it hard to have confidence in politics and what people write about them. Now, after reading Hindman, I'm thinking maybe that's because what is widely read and passed on is by white middle aged men.