Kent Newsome has been engaged in an interesting conversation over the shape and form of the blogosphere, but I think he's gone off the deep end with his latest post:

Which I think means that the more people who have access to the blogosphere, the more control will flow down blogger's hill, which will make the disenfranchised bloggers happier, which will be good for the blogosphere as a whole. There is certainly mathematical truth to the first two parts of that statement and it sounds like the words of a valiant, if idealistic, social reformer. But it is also self-evident that merely being included in a population, be it bloggers or citizens, does not end the struggle for equal opportunity. Sure, power shifts naturally as water flows naturally. But there's more to it than that. The efforts of those upstream, be they the ruling class or the dam builders, can impair and corrupt the process. To say that the natural effects of inclusion will solve the problem without further effort is to abandon a battle half won.

Here's a hot news flash: Life isn't Fair. It's not going to start being fair, either. Heck, the above makes as much sense as me demanding equal time for Smalltalk: "Hey, there's too much Java development going on, and that's not fair. Some of those projects simply must start using Smalltalk, in order to ensure equal opportunity for development languages".

Yeah, that's going to happen. No one is entitled to a large pool of readers - and a lack of them isn't a problem that needs solving. I have no idea where Kent is trying to go with that post - but let me ask this: what's the proposed solution?

Technorati Tags: media