- evidence based opinions
- backed with reliable and relevant sources
- related to food safety issues
- edited by fellow barfblog bloggers
The goal of the sites infosheets is claimed to be:
- surprising and compelling messages;
- putting actions and their consequence in context;
- generating discussion within the target audiences’ environments; and
- using verbal narrative, or storytelling, as a message delivery device.
Doug Powell writes a humorously titled blog, "Chicks still making people sick in other states" on an outbreak of Salmonellosis in Minnesota. Powell is Professor of food safety at Kansas State University and one of the publishers of Barfblog.
Powell successfully meets the criteria of Barfblog in this short but succinct blog. He cites the Minnesota Department of Health and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as sources for his data. These sources are reliable and dependable but Powell fails to produce a link or footnote to a website or pdf proving the validity of his citation. The blog reads a bit like a news article rather than a blog, as it lacks a sense of personality or opinion. It is almost as if the author vomited (or barfed, rather) factual statements all over the screen. This is a major problem as the website states that this blog is meant for evidence based opinions. If this is truly a goal of the website's bloggers, then it should be the priority of the author of any blog on said website to make their agenda clear and not to assume its inferred. Powell doesn't even attempt to take the data from the blog, and make some sort of statement with it. I guess you could argue that the title of his blog could be some sort of comical quasi-argument but it is hardly so.
I'll give it to Powell that the blog is relevant in that it is related to food safety, but that’s hardly enough. The reason people use blogs as a new source is because they have a degree of bias to them that makes them interesting. It is a lot more entertaining to hear a story or report from someone who isn't being paid to appear neutral or isn't implicitly inferring their opinions in an underhanded fashion. Many people prefer the bluntness of blogs to the monotonous tone of newscasts. If the writer of such a blog does not include a personal opinion or insight, like Powell has done, then the blog is stale and not differentiable from other news sources. Neutrality takes the very essence away that makes blogs unique.
Powell successfully meets the criteria of Barfblog in this short but succinct blog. He cites the Minnesota Department of Health and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as sources for his data. These sources are reliable and dependable but Powell fails to produce a link or footnote to a website or pdf proving the validity of his citation. The blog reads a bit like a news article rather than a blog, as it lacks a sense of personality or opinion. It is almost as if the author vomited (or barfed, rather) factual statements all over the screen. This is a major problem as the website states that this blog is meant for evidence based opinions. If this is truly a goal of the website's bloggers, then it should be the priority of the author of any blog on said website to make their agenda clear and not to assume its inferred. Powell doesn't even attempt to take the data from the blog, and make some sort of statement with it. I guess you could argue that the title of his blog could be some sort of comical quasi-argument but it is hardly so.
I'll give it to Powell that the blog is relevant in that it is related to food safety, but that’s hardly enough. The reason people use blogs as a new source is because they have a degree of bias to them that makes them interesting. It is a lot more entertaining to hear a story or report from someone who isn't being paid to appear neutral or isn't implicitly inferring their opinions in an underhanded fashion. Many people prefer the bluntness of blogs to the monotonous tone of newscasts. If the writer of such a blog does not include a personal opinion or insight, like Powell has done, then the blog is stale and not differentiable from other news sources. Neutrality takes the very essence away that makes blogs unique.
I like how clearly you point out the criteria to be. (maybe I completely did the assignment wrong) But, I like how you used the criteria that the website provides, rather than creating your own criteria that you personally could measure this blog up to be. I think that you really do a good job of balancing things that were engaging about the blog, and things that weren't. I think that it adds a lot of credibility to the author when they are able to understand what they don't like, but still are able to praise certain parts that amused them. I also like how you do a two-in-one evaluation with how the website measures up to the standards the creators put out, and then you go in with your own set of criteria and evaluate the blog further. Overall, I think this is a good first attempt at an evaluation! Good job!
ReplyDeleteAs always you never fail to disappoint me! You have done one again a great job! I love how you construct your sentences. For example, "It is almost as if the author vomited (or barfed, rather) factual statements all over the screen." Love Love LOVED this so much!! I think you had a well thought out blog as well as an entertaining and strong one. You have done a magnificent job. - Stewart
ReplyDeleteI think Stewart meant "You never disappoint me"...
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree with her latter sentiments and Alex's points, as well. Your strategy was clear, your writing clear and focused and polished, your voice engaging and intelligent. I would love to have more details from the blog itself--give us an overview of what else is in it, what this blog is about, what I can find in it, etc...and then this will be rock-solid.