Indian Blogosphere == Bitchy Wannabes, says Outlook Magazine
Outlook magazine has a rather astonishing aside in a story covering IIPM: TR Vivek writes (screenshot)
The Indian blogging community (or blogosphere, as it likes to call itself) is essentially a bitchy, self-indulgent and an almost incestuous network comprising journalists, wannabe-writers and a massive army of geeks who give vent to their creative ambitions on the internet. Given that the average blogger-age is 25 years, it’s clear bloggers love to indulge in hearty name-calling and taking college-style potshots at others. This is probably why some of them get into trouble.
Of course, Outlook would never indulge in self-indulgent cheap potshots. Oh no.
Thankfully for Outlook, the average Indian is still far too deferential to authority and India far too unwired for it to really get hit where it hurts — on the bottom line — the way the US media is. However the gratuitous name calling is likely to do Outlook little good because ultimately the vocal, articulate, well-to-do urbanites who comprise India’s blogosphere are ultimately its best customers, and instead of working with them it is clear some writers within the magazine have chosen to take an adversarial, condescending stance.
The outcome of that — a battle between a weekly magazine versus an always-on network increasingly reaching the most well-heeled of that magazine’s customers in an increasingly wired country — is foregone; it is a question of when not if. And given Mr Vivek’s snarkiness, I am not sure many would shed tears for him and the magazine he writes for.


October 24th, 2005 at 4:19 am
Well said.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
As posterboys of free speech, I expected you guys to react better to such criticism…
October 25th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
I’m not sure I’m a ‘posterboy’ for anything but yes, the author** and Outlook have the liberty to say whatever they want. And we have the liberty to point out that they are idiots. Put another way, free speech is not a free pass for stupidity, and that paragraph in the article showed a serious lack of logical and aesthetic ability on the part of the author.
** referred to in the third person because I’ve no way to be certain Comment #2 was written by the article’s author.
October 25th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
I read it and left a comment on the article itself. Havent been there afterward…