Rather than take up comment space on Hugh Holub’s excellent post, I’m going to offer my two cents here.

First, an observation about anonymity. Here I agree with Brodesky; it’s a curse. It is especially objectionable in comment threads, where people are able to get away with comments that they would be ashamed of if properly identified.

For all of the supposed anonymous blogging that Brodesky complains of he seems to know quite a bit about who’s blogging where. Here at TC.com most of our bloggers actually sign their blogs and the identity of those who don’t is pretty much an open secret.

One of Brodesky’s major criticisms of the blogosphere is that bloggers don’t do what responsible reporters do: get both sides of the story. Getting “both sides of the story” is what makes real reporters reliable and unbiased.

Maybe so, but it frequently leads to a failed obligation to get at the truth.

Here’s an example:

Too much political reportage takes the form of reporting candidate Jones’s assertion that Social Security is broke and candidate Smith’s claim that Social Security is funded until  the end of time. Is this enough? No. If this is your story you have failed the reader. You haven’t made any attempt to determine which one is right; or if the debate is grounded in contradictory assumptions such that the candidate exchange is simply empty.

Your story my be ‘unbiased’ but it’s less than useful. You have simply reported two opposed biases: Mr. Jones’s truthiness and Mr. Smith’s truthiness. Wow.

Art Jacobson

I once knew a man for whom grammatically correct speech was so important that he would claim not to understand you if you spoke to him in a way that violated even the nicest grammatical rule.

I was once arguing with him about Iraq and said, “I’m sorry, but I think we should have many less troops there.” He screwed up his face in puzzlement and claimed not to have the faintest idea what I meant. He often did this. I often wanted to punch him out.

He was having at me for using “less” when I should have used “fewer.”  You know, as in “Fewer donuts, less weight.” or “Less stagnant water means fewer mosquitos.”

Rules of acceptable use change. I don’t think we are any longer tempted to the barricades by split infinitives; and spoken speech is a lot more forgiving than the written word. Contractions help us. Is “I’ll” a contraction of “I shall” or “I will”? The nit-picker will never know, and will figure we got it right.

Where blog writing is concerned I think we are well-advised to remember that we are working in an “editor-free” zone. Write “there” when you meant “they’re” and your reader will be stopped dead in his tracks thinking, “Who edits this chit?” Well, no one, and now your wonderfully constructed post is beginning to circle to the ground in flames.

Let me leave you with a pair of solecisms (that means mistakes in the use of language; a breach of syntax or grammar) that are particularly distracting.

The first is the misuse of reflexive pronouns. Write, “They brought the food to John and myself,” and your reader’s thought shudders to a halt. No, please: “They brought the food to John and me.”

If you are Apple’s advertising firm you can get away with with “Think Different.” But on balance it’s probably wise not to  use an adjective to modify a verb.

Grammar Counts

NB: In case you need refreshing on the esoterica of English grammar you might want to read: “The Transitive Vampire—A handbook of Grammar for the Innocent, the Eager and the Doomed.” It’s written by Karen Elizabeth Gordon and published by Times Books. It’s delightful,