Does blogging help or hurt?

This Bulldog Reporter op-ed makes the case that blogging may not be all it's cracked up to be. He advises against jumping into the latest "craze" and, instead he advises "increasing investment in real advocacy education and civic debate in order to achieve goals." He says that blogs encourage people to only tune into messages that reinforce their currently held beliefs rather than exposing themselves to alternative viewpoints. This is valid because blogs that one visits are most commonly linked to other blogs that support the same viewpoint. But then again, so what?

Blogging is going to happen whether you "invest" in it or not. Who do you want to influence? In business, you want to invest in communications that targets most likely consumers. If you sell toilet paper, you're going to have an audience of just about anybody--but who wants to go to a blog about toilet paper and its uses anyway? Blogging is effective when it draws a crowd of people with specific interests and engages them in dialogue. Operating a blog and engaging those who operate blogs that target those with a common interest is smart business, and there are few communication tools out there that could do it more effectively than blogging.

Even if you're a politician or a civic organization, why not blog? I don't get the point of arguing against it. You want to energize your base with a blog and keep your natural constituency informed. Those on the other side will do the same. Those in the mushy middle will have blogs of their own and may visit blogs on the right or left. Blogs may spread false propaganda, like tabloids in the checkout lane, but they can also accomplish for you what the MSM won't. You don't have to look further than Rathergate to know that the blogosphere can hold the MSM accountable.

To me, it's all good.