Good question from Roger Ailes:
It’s also interesting to see that the Moonie Times has placed scare quotes around “marriage” in Sully’s item on gay marriage and polling. Seriously: why does Sully allow these bigots to tamper with his work product?
As if there’s any other kind.
There’s been a ton of “blog commentary”:http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?rank=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bu.edu%2Farion%2FPaglia_11.3%2FPaglia_Magic%2520of%2520Images.htm&sub=Go%21 on this “piece by Camille Paglia”:http://www.bu.edu/arion/Paglia_11.3/Paglia_Magic%20of%20Images.htm, which seems somewhat overrated to me, for much the reasons “Mark Liberman”:http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000772.html gives. But, as “Nicole Wyatt”:http://scribo.blogs.com/scribo/2004/04/blogs_and_argum.html notes, it raises an interesting question about what we’re doing when we’re blogging.
Many more such questions are raised by Geoff Nunberg’s nice FreshAir piece on Blogging – “The Global Lunchroom”:http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/lunchroom.html. Geoff notes how cliquey the language bloggers use can be.
bq. The high, formal style of the newspaper op-ed page may be nobody’s native language, but at least it’s a neutral voice that doesn’t privilege the speech of any particular group or class. Whereas blogspeak is basically an adaptation of the table talk of the urban middle class — it isn’t a language that everybody in the cafeteria is equally adept at speaking.