SharkJumping

Hysteria is defined in Wikipedia as "a diagnostic label applied to a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses" and later goes on to say that "is often associated with movements like the Salem Witch Trials..."  On the other hand, Dictionary.com defines the term Hysterical as "Extremely Funny". 

I felt like I had encountered both definitions after reading today's Forbes (would directly link, but Forbes doesn't seem link to cover stories - update:  link here) magazine cover story entitled "Attack of the Blogs" - thus my facetious More Dangerous than Bird Flu Pandemic? title.  But it really reminded me of a similar "mass hysteria" quote (Click Quick Time file: MassHysteria.wav or web link) from the comedy Ghostbusters....

This staggeringly one-sided Fox News-like article paints blogging as "the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty, but spewing lies, libel and invective." - it's simply mind boggling.  It's as if one couldn't use email, web pages, spam, viruses, P2P technology or other web techniques to cause as much mayhem as blogs do.  Yes, there is no doubt that there are a variety of bloggers who are attacking companies and people out of pure malice or greed, as is exhaustively detailed in the article and quoted by those with a vested interest in this mayhem, but to tar the entire industry in that vein is ludicrous. 

There is no attempt to point to the larger Fortune 500 companies such as GM (Bob Lutz or Microsoft who have made a point of encouraging their employees to blog, or to point to the new companies being created by this new medium, outside of a brief reference to the Weblogs purchase by AOL.   Nor is there a reference to the short but at least even-handed blogging article in Forbes this Summer - it's basically a 6 page cover story beat down on the sector.  However, the article does point out that blog providers or search engines aren't obligated to take down erroneous posts since they usually fall under common carrier status, and that may be hypocritical since a search engine like Google has a code of conduct for its Ad Sense program and deals mercilessly with any site that interferes with its search algorithm.

Now I don't think blogs are the salvation of mankind or a replacement for traditional marketing - the medium is a result of the Internet growth and many of the advances in collaborative tools people have made over the past few years, and much of this amateur journalism should advance the cause of democracy and capitalism, both core tenents of Forbes - but just as you could use a printing press after 1450 to more efficiently libel an opponent than with prior manual technologies, you can use a blog today to do the same more efficiently than in prior years.   I'd advise Forbes to focus on more important issues such as global trade disagreements and to leave the cover story hysteria to the good pilgrims of Salem Mass...