To Blog or Not to Blog?

In the May 28 edition of the newsletter, contributor Susan Carpenter broached the subject, writing:

Have you ever considered migrating themail to a blog? Occasionally I would like to see some chatter about a posting, usually because I don’t know enough about DC politics to ferret out the truth and I’d like to see what others think. At other times I would like to make a comment — a short comment, not worthy of a headlined item in themail. You’ve got a lot of obviously well-informed readers and submitters, and it would be great to hear some real-time back and forth on a topic. The difficulty might be in monitoring, but if we check with ongoing political bloggers I suppose you could make a decision whether you actually monitor the comments or just let the chips fall where they may (my preference).

Yesterday's edition featured responses, both pro and con, to the idea. Some readers bristled at the idea, fearing an onslaught of uncontrolled commentary like that which has made life for D.C. Wire, City Desk, and DCist a bit of a nightmare:

Do not under any circumstances change the format. The only thing that makes themail worth reading is the fact that you edit it. If you turn it into a listserv, it will be littered with bandwidth-wasting top postings that are impossible to read. If you convert to an online blog or web based discussion board themail will be hijacked by flame wars and low value postings.

Others, though, liked the idea:

I vote for the blog format. I have a personal one, and I monitor more than a few listservs and neighborhood blogs. The blog format makes it easier for the public to reply to specific items, and negates the pile-ons that happen on listservs. You can reply to other people’s posts, but it’s in an organized format. I would think that it would be helpful to your readership, although I imagine it would be more difficult for you to keep track of who reads your work.

Being the blog old-timers that we are, we'd have to lean towards the no crowd -- and not because we fear that competition. The Mail has long been an outlet in which the informed and the curious can read relevant news and sensible opinions, and should they feel the need, respond. The fact that the newsletter is edited makes for discourse that remains civil and on topic, and forces contributors to carefully choose their thoughts and words for maximum impact. Though blogging's immediacy provides a distinct advantage over the antiquated model of only providing news and opinion at specific times during the day, it does suffer the scourge of anonymous commenters who with a click of their mouse can leave hate-filled and irrelevant rants that are often met with more of the same. And when it comes to District politics, D.C. Wire's experience in this regard might prove instructive -- the comments have become so venomous and vicious that the blog's readership often complains that it sours their reading experience.

There is something endearing about The Mail's format. Though blogs are pushing media to reconsider how and when they present the news, The Mail may be best served by doing things as they always have.