I have been reading quite a bit of Ann Althouse’s critiques of OSM (for example: here) and I pretty much agree with her. I have honestly been surprised at the initial stumbling (like the issues of the name) and the real lack of content and sense of bloggishness at their web site.
And it would seem that despite some of the abuse Ann has gotten for her posts on OSM (such as in the comments in this post at Roger L. Simon’s site), that she isn’t alone in terms of not being impressed.
David Corn, a member of the OSM editorial board, has many of the same concerns that have caused many of us to scratch our heads over the OSM roll-out this week:
I’m still waiting to see OSM straighten itself out. The debut was hardly that of a powerhouse site, and changes, I’m told, are in the works. I hope quickly in the works. The site needs more action, pizzazz, and raison d’etre. Believe me, I’ve thrown much more than two cents into the internal discussion about the site, its problems, and the potential solutions. Before the launch, left-of-center bloggers and some visitors to this site were fretting it would be the HQ for neocon shock-troops on the Web. Vanity Fair’s James Wolcott and I had a back-and-forth on the subject, with Wolcott comparing the OSM gang to Dr. Josef Mengele. But OSM’s startup problems have not been ideological; they’ve been editorial. The content and presentation have not been sufficiently compelling.
Glenn Reynolds, also on the board, adds an indeed.
So, it is hardly just the skeptics who have issues with the OSM roll-out.
November 20th, 2024 at 11:27 am
Hey, come on. This still a waaaaaaaaaay better start than when Air America went on the radio.
November 20th, 2024 at 12:09 pm
Let’s just say that despite my hard insistence on scientific method in the classroom, there is room for discussion of “intelligent design” in the blogosphere.
November 20th, 2024 at 3:29 pm
More thoughts on OSM