A reporter for a Big Newspaper called me today to ask about Arianna Huffington's soon-to-launch celebrity group-blog project (NY Times). As I said at the outset of the conversation, I'd prefer to wait to see it before deciding if it's good or bad.
At the very least, it's an interesting idea. I'm especially waiting to see if the contributors engage with the readers in a genuine conversation. If they do, I'll lead the cheers. If not, then the site will just be a scrolling op-ed page.
Nothing wrong with that. I'd certainly read it. But if that's all it becomes, then it's anything but a breakthrough in the arena I care most about: citizen journalism.
Oh joy ... more attention for those who are already getting more attention than they warrant.
"In her solicitation letter to bloggers, Ms. Huffington promised them no heavy lifting. "You're actually already doing the hardest work of a blogger: having interesting opinions and fresh takes on the hot stories of the day," she wrote. "We'll just provide a megaphone.""
That last sentence says it all:
"We'll just provide a megaphone."
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | April 25, 2005 at 10:35 PM
My initial reaction was overwhelming joy that at last I could hear Paris Hilton's opinions on health care policy. But as I thought about it, the celebrity aspects of the blog may attract some non-traditional readers who'd never listen to Meet the Press or NPR to discussions about public affairs...that can't be all bad, can it?
Posted by: Owen | April 26, 2005 at 05:50 AM
My first reaction was irritation that it would be called "the huffington post" if the point is to gather tons of big names and their opinions. The huffington post should be arianna's personal blog site name.
But after I got over that (I know, she can call it whatever she wants), I still wasn't sure how revolutionary this idea was. I'm eager to see what comes of it though.
Posted by: Anjali | April 26, 2005 at 08:00 AM
Whatever you may think of her, Ariana Huffington is interesting. She's been on the inside of the Republican inner circle before becoming a social activist. She has talked about the difficulty she had of getting super rich Republicans to fund social programs for the poor instead of museums and opera.
As for celebrity opinions, since when have they needed an outlet to express their opinions? They just breathe and the world takes notes. So I don't see where this blog is going to have much impact outside of just sheer entertainment.
Posted by: craig | April 26, 2005 at 08:31 AM
I don't give a rat's a... to be honest.
Celebrities are famous for a reason, be it acting, or singing, or whatever. That's what they're good at and in general they should stick to it.
As far as I'm concerned, a celebrities opinion on global warming/feeding the poor/AIDS/fill in the blank is no more interesting or valid than my carpenter's opinion.
Posted by: Ted Demopoulos | April 26, 2005 at 12:16 PM
"Celebrities are famous for a reason, be it acting, or singing, or whatever."
True, but in this case the "whatever" includes journalism, history, social commentary, and behind-the-scenes political operations, because the "Celebrities" include the likes of Cronkite, Schlesinger, Mailer, and Jordan.
Posted by: Ran Talbott | April 28, 2005 at 07:51 PM
im a journalist and i am doing a story about 50 cent and his g-unit group
i need to find out his email adress or any one of the g-unit bands email
adresses if you have this info please tell me by emailing me thank you
Posted by: jordan | August 26, 2005 at 05:49 PM