In Naked Conversations, they list who should NOT blog. Basically, it’s whoever needs control, or needs to maintain strict PR (they gave the example of Suddam Hussein. I would add Karl Rove and the Bush administration to the list. Of course, any president or presidential candidate nowadays is slave to “appearances” and “staying on message”)

Blogs have so far worked extremely well for companies and people with do-the-right-thing cultures. We think they will fail in cultures that have public-be-damned attitudes.

Naked Conversations p.137

OK, pretty obvious, but there are still those who “blog” seemingly to say that they are, and yet their blog is very much a PR thing, and many have no comments or interaction. We could say that these are simply pretenders, trying to cash in on the status and the “coolness” of it. Al Mohler is a perfect example. He “blogs” but he is not seemingly the type to want to dialogue.

The authors in Naked Conversations also assert that “embellishers” should not blog, that there are too many “fact checkers”. But I seem to notice quite a crowd in the Bush-camp, especially among the “God-bloggers”. they are among Bush’s most persistent and stubborn supporters. Most “fact-checkers” tire of posting there. Obviously, one person’s “fact” checker is another one’s blind, partisan, mistaken opponent. (p.138)

What really gets under my skin is those within the church who worry about “what might be said” on a blog. If we insist that the “marketers” or official spokespersons of the churches and her organizations are the only ones we want publishing their prounouncements, then the best anbd deepest reasons for blogging are forfeited, and they might as well work on image crafting, and quit giving lip service to the idea that they are interested in people getting to know one another. I like the United Methodist Communications mission statement: “We help the church tell its story”. That’s one of the best pleas for instituting blogs and enabling blogs across the denomination that I can think of.