For the record, there’s a basic difference between my approach to punditry and that of the press wizards at the Oz. They wrote stories almost daily for months claiming the election could be called the next day, or the next week, or was “imminent” or whatever. I waited until I actually had firm information – from Labor sources. Not reading the tea leaves or joining the dots with the latest news story and claiming there was now a “trigger” or the government was “under pressure” (from whom, I wondered?)… I’ll stand by the claim that the final decision to go ahead with an early election hadn’t been made until late last week. Any enterprising journos who doubt that might like to, well, investigate – perhaps by contacting people involved in that decision rather than speculating in retrospect. If there were indeed cunning plans afoot which journos can now reveal, whatever stopped them writing about the said cunning plans when they were actually being made and implemented?

To adopt a phrase that’s been around the traps lately with regard to the distinction between bloggers and journos, I picked up the phone. I’m not so sure the pundits did. End of story. Let’s get on with talking about the campaign!

I’d also point out that the method of selective quotation does produce a real (and intended) distortion in the story about what was being said here. That’s no great surprise, but anyone interested in boring old fashioned stuff like the truth can make their own minds up by reading the posts in question in their entirety. They can be accessed via this tag.

Skepticlawyer comments:

One entirely legitimate attack that the MSM directs at the blogosphere is based on the latter’s pettiness and nastiness. Of course, they use a broad brush, and all of us are tarred. Sure, Crikey doesn’t quite count as MSM, occupying an interesting liminal space, but I’m not sure that facilitating this aspect of the blogosphere is the way for any media organisation to go. It may be one day, but not with this group of writers.

That’s an interesting point, though the MSM attack on the blogosphere is so predictable it hardly matters if it’s justified [and I won't comment on the merits of the various Grodscorp etc. blogs as they're not among my regular reading]. I will say that I think there is some public purpose served by attacking Bolt’s egregious twisting of the facts and logical black holes – because he’s so prominent as a climate change denier. I’m not so sure about Tim Blair. He seems to me to be stuck in something of a blogging timewarp – invent formula circa 2002, stick to it. What strikes me about Tim’s blogging is how little it engages with the Australian political debate. Bolt may claim to have a million hits a month or whatevs (and incidentally, on Bolt’s misleading measure – remembering a million “hits” doesn’t equate to readers, we were at 1049199 pages served in January). I’m puzzled, though, as to how many Daily Telegraph readers are interested in catfights between Blair and “lefty” bloggers and other minor public figures.

The blogosphere as Blair once knew it isn’t the small group of sites referencing each other all the time read by a tiny few. He seems to me to be writing more for his commenters a lot of the time rather than for a broader audience. How many people going to the news.com.au domain really care about Margo Kingston, Bob Ellis, or Marieke Hardy (or Jeremy Sear, and with respect given to all those people) and the others Blair takes pot shots add? … I should of course include “Lefty Kim” in that list… Or even know who they are? Crikey can “monetise” the value of the online politics aficionados who know the rules of this game, but what sort of audience reads Blair having a go at obscure lefties? I may, of course, be wrong. Perhaps there’s a huge audience. I’m open to correction on this, but if I’m not mistaken, Tim – who used to place so much stock on stats comparisons – no longer tells anyone anything about the size of his readership.

Elsewhere: Guy Beres.

Pavlov’s Cat also has some interesting reflections on being a sociable blogger, and how addictive it can be. It’s well worth remembering that there is stuff to do other than correct people who are wrong on the internets. At a time when so many blogs are making the switch to the Crikey platform, and others are considering such a move (and that comments thread is worth a read), I think it’s important both to celebrate the independent blogosphere (not that I’m knocking the Crikey folks – quite the contrary) and blogging as an amateur practice in the best sense of the word – do it as long it’s fun and rewarding, and you’re writing about what you’re passionate about, not as a chore or because you think you’re on a mission to change the world. Remember that next time some concern troll or trollblogger denounces the whole show as falling short of the high standards the MSM sets for “balance and fact” or loudly condemns you for not blogging about this or that. The public sphere isn’t all uber serious rational deliberation (is it ever?) but a space for expression and enjoyment, or it should be.

Speaking of blogging, Rx advised in comments that Tim Dunlop’s commenting crew from the now sadly erstwhile Blogocracy have set themselves up in their own digs. That’s an interesting development, and it also goes to show one other important thing about the blogosphere – it’s the community that matters.

Elsewhere: Boynton.

Update: Lyn Calcutt at Public Opinion on the redistribution going on around the blogosphere.