… and too little time to read it.
Much as I’ve only really dipped my toe in the vast blogging pool that exists, I’ve quite enjoyed it. But it has a downside. There’s too much out there to read and I want to read it. To be fair, some of it is utter guff and some of it is very challenging and educational (I hesitate to suggest where this blog might fit). But I simply don’t have the time to dig into each and every interesting article that flits across my feedreader. And then there’s the comments! They’re a major read in themselves.
But I have noticed one interesting thing about the sites I tend to visit (I’ve added a few to my blogroll on the right) – I rarely agree with them. This is, in part, a deliberate strategy. There’s no point in reading stuff that just agrees with you – it’s simply affirming what you already know and you don’t really gain anything. But reading stuff you don’t agree with is much more fun (maybe I’m just a masochist). It challenges you. It forces you to think about what you do believe. It makes you dig deeper. It also, I think, forces you to be discerning. There’s a lot of stuff out on the interweb that is unscholarly, biased, ill-informed, misleading and just downright rubbish. But you can tell a lot about the integrity of a site with the way it engages with its commenters. The poorer sites will simply bash away with the “you’re wrong!” hammer. The better ones will recognise and acknowledge different viewpoints and engage graciously in debate.
Maybe that’s just a long-winded way of saying that if I add new sites to my blogroll, don’t assume I agree with them, but I do ‘endorse’ them (for what that’s worth) as being worth reading.