There seems to be a current obsession with the language of weblogging coursing through print. First things first we got Technobabble in The Times being all random, and now we have “ploggers” (from the Guardian’s Backbencher e-mail):
Readers who have yet to succumb to the blogging craze sweeping Westminster (© all leftwing thinktanks) should pay heed to the experience of Richard Allan (Lib Dem, Sheffield Hallam), a blogger – or “plogger”, as the political variety now seem to be known. Richard, who has announced his intention to stand down at the next election, was asked how it felt to be a “blogging elected representative”.
“My answer, based on my experience to date, is that a blog is like a dog,” Richard mused. “It needs a certain amount of care every day. This is time consuming and can feel like a bit of a drag when you are busy. But you know that without the regular walks and feeding then the dog/blog will become unhealthy. And for all that you occasionally moan about the demands of your faithful friend, you become so attached that you would not enjoy life without half so much without it.”
I can’t quite figure the whole thing out. I mean firstly, no one seems to like the word ‘blog’ anyway except the press. Everyone else seems to find it really ugly or vaguely stupid. Movable Type no longer use it at all, and various long-term luminaries have publically regretted ever hearing or using the word in the first place. And as to all these other neologisms… I just don’t get why the press gets all excited about all those little bits of shorthand – they’re (at best) only tongue-in-cheek. Very few people take them in any way seriously. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to tell whether these journalists are in on the joke or whether they’re just looking for something easy to take pot-shots at…