Bullard Thinks All Bloggers Are Wackos

An article by Ayelet Noff    5 Comments

See this pic? This is how David Bullard views us, the bloggers. Bullard, one of South Africa’s most reputable print journalists, writes a weekly column for the Sunday Times (which has a readership of well over 1m people). He has recently written an article, insulting all bloggers and portraying them as pathetic human beings who have very little to say and couldn’t ever get a job in journalism, even if they tried.

Bullard writes:

“Most blog sites are….cobbled together by people who wouldn’t stand a hope in hell of getting a job in journalism, mainly because they have very little to say. It’s rather sad how many people think the tedious minutiae of their lives will be of any interest to anyone else. It’s even sadder when someone reads them….

Many bloggers prefer to remain anonymous and with good reason. The content of their sites is so moronic that even their best friends would disown them if they knew they were the authors.”

As if this wasn’t insulting enough, he continues to say:

“I do, however, object to some anonymous, scrofulous nerd pumping meaningless drivel into cyberspace at all hours of the day and night simply because he can’t find a girl to sleep with him. These are the sort of wackos who gun down their fellow students at university.”

This last paragraph just shocked me. How could a renowned journalist make such a ludicrous and hateful statement? And based on what evidence does Bullard decide that “many bloggers prefer to remain anonymous”? I myself don’t blog anonymously and frankly, I think it is safe to say, that the majority of blogs out there are not anonymous. Also, why does Bullard assume that we all want jobs in journalism? The bloggers I know blog because they enjoy it and want to do it. Not because it’s the only thing they can get paid to do.

I completely agree with Vinny Lingham who writes:

“This is exactly the mentality that is leading to the decline of offline print as a source of information, because the people entrenched in the offline world are so resistant to change, they cannot keep up with the times.

If I had to paraphrase what Bullard is saying, then basically Michael Arrington, Om Malik, Robert Scoble, Jeremy Zawodny, Danny Sullivan & Matt Cutts wouldn’t ever get hired by a print publication – (like hell) – but even more to the point, why would they want to write for a bunch of anally retentive middle to late aged complacent publications that are in a declining market. Most of the CEOs and editors of these publications are hoping to retire before they go bust and Web 2.0 becomes and entrenched way of life – and this is probably one of the biggest drivers of their resistance to change – with maybe the exception of Rupert Murdoch.”

It seems that a day after his article was published, Bullard started a blog of his own, continuing the debate regarding his article and posting a response, therefore, I am not quite sure whether his overall strategy was just to degrade us or to create a buzz for his own new blog.

In response to Bullard’s attack, Vincent Maher and Louis-Marc have issued a public challenge to Bullard and four other newspaper columnists of his choice to a public writing contest. Let’s see if Bullard accepts. He may not want to engage with wackos like us who can’t get laid.

Check out this clip showing him arrogantly bragging about the attention that he’s received due to his article:

Thanks to Vincent Maher for the pic.

Technorati tags: david bullard, blog, sunday times, vinny lingham, michael arrington, om malik, robert scoble, jeremy zawodny, danny sullivan, matt cutts, web 2.0, rupert murdoch, vincent maher