Why do people blog?

Interesting article, titled "The New Commentariat", in G2 (part of the Guardian) today discussing political bloggers & why they do it. Caused a lot of chatter: at Harry's Place and elsewhere.

This isn't what the article actually says, but I'm convinced "the new commentariat" has arisen because of deep dissatisfaction with the dynamic of the mainstream media. How can we characterise this?

(1) They get their facts wrong continually. By way of example, yesterday I felt driven enough to write to the Independent about the "Environmental Map of the World" they included with their print edition. Australia, one of the world's worst carbon emitters is shown as one of the least bad - the box is yellow, when it should be red, like the US. (And I put some more about this chart here). So far the Indy don't seem to have taken any notice of my complaint. And I keep meaning to get round to dropping a note to the Guardian about this TV review article. Completely factually wrong: they write that: "Breakfast is generally a live rat snake...". Actually in the programme the "nut" who is (heroically in my view) trying to save these magnificent creatures preferred to feed his snakes on dead rats. I could go on. As long as these papers don't libel anyone they don't have enough incentive to simply get things right. Pages to fill up, deadlines to meet: they just write any old rubbish.

(2) They have great power in our electoral process. "It's the Sun wot won it". And the arrogance to make use of it. After all, it's very difficult to get a job as a journo or at the BBC. So the opinions of those who are there must be more important than anyone else's mustn't they? Perhaps by misleading headlines and pushing their views as "news" they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. The bloggers could end up taking on some of the current role of the mainstream media.

(3) They are victims of groupthink. The BBC is the best and worst example. They cherish their "independence" and claim this is important for the political process in this country. But they are not an umbrella for independent thinkers. Instead they have developed their own ideology, and have their own line on issues. And they have no self-awareness of this - as evidenced by the hubristic Greg Dyke and pitiful Gavyn Davies, who would have been out of his depth in the shallow end, not swimming with the sharks.

This is why the political bloggers are disproportionately "pro-war" left, as reported in the article. With very few media organisations each having developed their own organisational culture and view on the war, important views are just not represented. Passages of the article are fascinating, as we have now reached the point where at least the Guardian (especially now that Julie Burchill and David Aaronovitch have moved on) is deep in confluent groupthink. Get this: "How all these feelings metamorphosed into support for the war is harder to discern: it sometimes seemed as if the leftwing hawks, out of distaste for some aspects of the anti-war lobby, were propelled by magnetic repulsion to a default position of support for the war that didn't always ring true." What??? The writer seems to assume they are right, and these people are temporarily deranged. All analysis has disappeared. Blair lied and took us to war because he wanted to steal Iraq's oil. Or whatever.