I recently finished reading the book “How To Argue: Powerfully, Persuasively, Positively” and while reading it, I had an epiphany: The internet has provided a venue for everyone to express opinions (which is great), but has also lowered the bar for what it takes to argue. Arguing (or, in my terms, having a light debate, because arguing has a bad connotation in my mind) requires a certain standard for the way you lay your argument, and the internet, as a whole, is missing that.

The only reason I mention this is, in the age of blogs, every one thinks they’re a journalist.  Well, maybe not every one, but many.  Some blogs aren’t anything more than a public journal (like this one, that I write for my own sanity, while keeping my journal religiously as well).  Many blogs are situated in a place where really can be journalistic, but come across as completely editorial, and often terrible editorial at that.

I can get opinions from the comments.

While newspapers still provide the news, they seem to be trying to stay one step above spammers. My local newspaper, for instance, only gives you 15 articles until it wants you to pay (hello Incognito mode!) while still using ads that expand on the page, making it impossible to click anywhere until it’s expand/contract animation has completed.  In that situation, I enjoy reading the news, avoiding the comments (I use a Facebook tracking blocker, so I never see the comments anyway), and forming my own feelings based on the information presented.

I’d pay for it if its presentation wasn’t so awful.