Thanks to DavidH for pointing out a pretty significant editing error in my quote in the Chronicle story… The error, on the part of the Chronicle, reverses my intent at worst or at least makes me look like an idiot (as do those glaring square brackets to fix my grammar errors)… It seems that this would be an editing error vs. an intentional misrepresentation since the reversal of opinion would not support the author’s point.
The logic parsing was a bit rough and my statement was probably not the most clearly put, particularly at 12:36AM, but I think I responded to Marc with what was an accurate statement of my opinion.
I was misquoted as saying signal to noise was high (i.e. lots of signal, not enough noise) when in fact I said noise to signal was high:
From: David Nunez
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 12:36 AM
Subject: RE: Austin Chronicle Query
I’d be happy to talk, but my take on it may not “fit.”
The noise to signal ratio is especially high in Warblogs. Just because blogging brings the power of simple online publishing to everyone doesn’t necessarily imply that everyone knows how to wield it effectively.
So people, the majority of which haven’t bothered to do any real research, end up ranting over emotional issues (like war), and linking to each others’ rants, pompously proclaiming that their opinions are The Truth.
I’ve found that we get the Pyramid Scheme Effect among bloggers: a few A-listers happily generate the poorly researched, uninformed, and even ridiculous thoughts, and the hordes of bloggers willingly drive enormous traffic flow to those sites, often chiming in with their own, even less valuable opinions.
Warblogs don’t interest me. It’s hard to trust the quality of the speech, and I’m too busy to waste days trying to sift out the chaff.