“[W]hat difference will blogging make to the MSM”

I very much agree; the debate was heavily focussed on relations with the MSM. There were a couple of mentions – from Mick Fealty and an audience member – about engagement and re-engagement, but it really was a lot about blogging and the MSM. Insightful comment, and it’s something I’ve seen replicated elsewhere.

In fairness to Liberal Conspiracy and Con Home, they do non-MSM organising, although Con Home in particular has a Westminster bubble feel to it. I don’t think the same is quite true of LC.

I think blogging does make, as you say, a difference to those who blog; it’s brought new perspectives to me as a blogger and blog reader and that has sharpened my thoughts. I wonder, though, what the aggregate effect of blogging is. I hope that it has brought about more political education – it certainly has where I’m concerned – but I think the way it took off (with blogs like Guido Fawkes at the front) means it is in a largely partisan, sniping form because people think that’s what it’s about, which is disappointing.

I disagree with you about backbone, btw.

xD.

The answer is in those who asked the question for what they really mean is what difference will blogging make to the MSM. Given that all of the speakers have their snouts firmly in the MSM trough, we can hardly look to them for advice, if we add three if not four of them supported ‘the war’ you get an idea of the lack of back bone you had there.

It is obvious that blogging makes a difference to those of us that blog, as it gives us an outlet which did not exist before. The best bloggers, whatever their subject do not give a shit about the MSM, we may read it, steal from it, whatever. What we certainly do not do is respect it, as when push comes to shove, like the speakers at this event, the media always sides with the State.