bad name for bloggers?

joe lieberman's lose of the connecticut democratic senatorial primary this morning was the top story on good morning america. the feature suggested that bloggers were mainly to blame. my ears perked up at that one. i think that they have skewed people's perceptions of blogging in a negative light.

There is also no question that bloggers — those online diarists simultaneously celebrated as a bold, new generation of citizen activists and derided as nasty socially challenged scribblers on a virtual bathroom wall — played a major role as well.

On highly trafficked national Web sites such as the Daily Kos, bloggers sent Lamont money, roused activists, drew attention, and influenced public opinion.

i can't believe they defined bloggers as "nasty socially challenged scribblers on a virtual bathroom wall." this PISSES ME OFF. the ignorant american who knows nothing about blogging and the freedom it allows will become prejudiced against it.

i blog, but just about whatever i feel about at the time. there are several blogs i read, but i know i am reading people's opinions. what is the difference between reading someone's blog and reading an editorial column on the newspaper? are the editorial writers more acceptable because they are paid professionals? hello - freedom of speech. each american has it. and if we want to write about it on our blogs, that is a great thing. it is a wonderful way to express ourselves. people don't have to believe what they read. but they should have the freedom to read it as much as the bloggers should have the freedom to write it. there are many political blogs out there and the people that read and comment on them know what they are getting involved in. i actually think that it is great that bloggers and the internet in general will help influence elections. it lets americans learn about and discuss other american's opinoins. not just what the press tells us.