Tomorrow's Imperfect Democracy

<a href="">BlinkyMummy</a> writes an arguably humourous <a href="">post about how editors refuse to publish her content</a> on <a href="">the Singapore blog aggregator</a>. Of course, to quell such allegations and to add a tinge of irony, the editors <a href="">publish her complaint</a>.
Now I'm going to assume she was being somewhat serious, because <a href="">hiding behind humour and then saying you didn't really mean it</a> provides some form of protection from being made the next Singapore exile / bankrupt / bad guy.
First of all, I think it is unfair to expect to be a perfect democracy, where everybody gets everything they want. Though I haven't lived on this fair earth long enough to see kingdoms tumble and civilisations being built, I'm pretty sure there is no such thing. And simply doesn't set out to be one.
Let's look at the model here: Lots of members and a few editors. Members submit links, editors approve links they think are interesting. Editors are in positions of power. Yes they abuse them. editor <a href="">Agagooga</a> commented in Blinkmummy's post that
<blockquote>10) Brazenly insulting/challenging editors is not the best way to get your post published. And then you wonder why things don't get published.</blockquote>
And this isn't the first time we've heard this. But I'm not going to blow this point up out of proportion either. The editors were appointed to exercise certain powers, and the very act would be misconstrued as abuse by some and wisdom by others.
At the end of the day, it's just a few hits. Temporary fame. You want to be the next <a href="">Heather Armstrong</a> or <a href="">Jason Kottke</a>? Write well, write consistently, know your audience and work hard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *