"Slow blogging" is a flop

By: Kathryn Lisk

Sharon Otterman from The New York Times wrote a story on Sunday about how today's blogging world is too fast-paced for its own good. 

Slow blogging, which was inspired from the slow food movement, argues that quality writing can take time. Just like fast food, which can be consumed occasionally yet isn't healthy on a regular basis, immediate blogs shouldn't be the only form of news for readers. 

Slow bloggers said they take their time with what they write and can spend a month or more in between blogs. They said writers from Web sites like Huffington Post, who publish up to 50 entries a day, aren't thorough enough with their work.

I understand the phenomenon of slow blogging and respect writers who examine their work and add artistic style. But little is achieved from a few bloggers fighting against others who post their thoughts on the internet faster. 

Writing about breaking news a month later makes the story entirely irrelevant. 

Furthermore, how is this issue any different than the way stories are written in newspapers? Regardless of how fast a blogger posts, news will continue to unfold. Faster blogs just mean faster news for the public. Where's the problem?