Scanlan's Hotlists: if by "hot" they mean defunct...

I am supposed to include in this blog "an entry of my choice".  However, I have been instructed that this entry must pertain to the JMC 2033 class and must also include a link.  

I thought that the main text for the class, Reporting and Writing: Basics for the 21st Century by Christopher Scanlan would be a good source for my class-pertaining blog.  

Little did I know that utter frustrations awaited.

The book, which will be referred to as Scanlan for the rest of this post, was published in 2000.  Although nine years does not seem like a long time, for the subject matter of this particular text it is an eternity.  The technology-fueled field of modern journalism is changing at break-neck speed.  A text book nearly a decade old is guaranteed to be full of glaring holes, and Scanlan is no exception.

At the end of each chapter, Scanlan lists links under the heading "Hotlist".  These links are printed in their full HTML form.  For example:

 http://screen.com/mnet/eng/med/class/teammedia/cbc.htm

(Hint: It leads to nothing.)

Despite the onslaught of official-looking forward slashes, this link is, in fact, dead.

Unfortunately, "links" like the one above seem to be the norm rather than the exception in the many Hotlists of Scanlan.  

I tried in vain to visit around ten of these sites Scanlan insists are hot, only to be met with numerous variations of the "web site not found" message.  I even received a classic "HTTP 404 error" screen, which brought back memories of modems and dial-up internet from the mid 90's.  

The worst part is that the first site I was able to reach that actually worked

had not been updated in over six years.

Yes, on a website that Scanlan promised would offer me "information about the history and function of grand juries", under the heading "What's New on the site?" the most recent date was 2/26/03.  

So while my post began as a summary of one of the helpful links made available in my text, it ends in a brutal condemnation of the book and a long-overdue cry for it to be replaced.  This is simply unacceptable.  

What makes a blog "powerful"?

This article is titled the "The world's 50 most powerful blogs".  It lists 50 blogs, widely varied in content, and has a paragraph-long blurb explaining why each particular blog deserved a spot on the list.  

The blogs on the list are widely varied.  Blogs about politics, celebrity gossip, photographs, traditional diary-style confessional outlets, and even a blog dedicated to a computer game all make the list.  There are blogs geared for lesbians and blogs geared for the technology savvy.  I would venture to say that the list might just contain something for everyone.  

However, I did notice a few areas that seemed to be underrepresented.  There was one blog devoted to European football, but other than that sports blogs were noticeably absent from the list.  There was a blog dedicated to popular music, and several were solely focused on reporting on every insignificant detail of the lives of famous celebrities.  But blogs about other aspects of entertainment were missing from the list.  Where were the blogs about movies and television programs?

Also, the very name of the article bothers me.  "Powerful" is defined as "having or exerting great power or force".  Blogs do not exert force.  Sure, they may influence a few thousand readers on a regular basis.  So why not name the list the 50 most influential blogs?  Calling them powerful is ridiculous, especially when one examines some of the blogs on the list.  TMZ.com is the epitome of sensational journalism.  Legitimizing it by calling it "powerful"

 only cheapens the word.