"Pre-existing" media

I've just taken a look at some of the bloggers who were news somebodies before they were blogging somebodies. It's hard to separate my reaction to their sites from my reaction to the content on their sites. For James Wolcott, his site was a turn-off for me because it is a seemingly endless diatribe on how crappy the world is. It's feels to me that he sits at his computer, ponders who or what he wants to attack, and then spits out yet-another "the world sucks according to me" post. Easy on the eyes to be sure -- no annoying link-to-link-to-link, flashing ads, or endless threads and sidebars -- but really, a bit depressing for me. **Addendum: I rechecked his site - which I was JUST reading -- and he just made a post that was much lighter than the prior ones I read. I guess he's feeling frisky from his vacation on Cape May. So now I'm flummoxed. Do I like this guy, or is he annoying? My reaction is also different than it would have been before this class and all the blog-surfing we've been doing. He writes provocatively about current issues but doesn't have any space for comments. I find this frustratingly PASSIVE as a blog reader. I would like the opportunity to react to his stuff. However, I didn't have this same reaction to Dooce or our friend "Sarah" -- why not? I guess because they each write about their own lives and aren't proselytizing on their point of view. Wolcott, however, takes a stance on everything. In blogworld, it's too heavy-handed for me to do that without giving the readership a chance to respond. I guess it's the difference between a commentator on the radio, and a commentator with a radio talkshow. After a while, I really get sick of listening to one person go on and on about his or her opinion of all that's wrong (and very occasionally, what's right) with the world (think Rush -- barf). It's much more interesting when there's the interaction with callers and other guests.