Popularisation of academic ideas has been an accepted function of academics for at least 150 years, and those who do it well have been honoured for doing so.

But it is no substitute for serious research and the articles and books that are necesary for that to be published. The idea that anything worthwhile can be said in 1000 words is nonsense. To demonstrate a truth and deal with possible objections may take a few lines, or several books. The populariser can rarely do more than sketch a proof.

Ozbib

I'm a free-lance journalist in a provincial NSW city. Recently I wrote a column for the local newspaper about a PhD thesis on aged care(Laughing It Off; Uncovering the Workplace Experience of Aged Care Nurses, by Valerie Adams, of the Hawke Institute at the University of South Australia). When I asked for permission to quote it, Valerie said she saw it as one of her functions as an academic to raise public awareness -- in this case, about problems in nursing homes.

Some academics find out things that their communities need to know. They should become 'public intellectuals' in the sense that Tim Dunlop wrote about in his piece on blogging for the Evatt Foundation (8uphttp://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/91.html). Perhaps, as MikeM writes, the public doesn't want or need particle physics blogs. But there are subjects (important ones, even if they aren't hard science) where having information and informed opinions made widely public can make a difference. That's where academic blogs could come into their own.

I share James McConvill's belief that academics should be blogging. I even see it as a civic duty, rather than just a good career move.

As one who has spent years of retirement in a study of world history and politics, a well as gaining Honours in International Relations, it is becoming hard to fathom out whether much of the facts exhibited on our Online is mostly spin copied from media accounts, or academically well researched.

We could ask what the feature below indicates - just one-sided opinion or a reasonably factional account?

From Jay Parini, writer for the “Guardian”.

From the report, it seems from a book by George Packer, that G W Bush attacked the wrong nation, especially as Iran has been in the Pentagon’s sights ever since the end of WW2.

Packer says that the 9/11 terrorist attack. no doubt made Bush change direction, even though Neo-Cons like Paul Wolfowitz along with Dick Cheney and Paul Rumsfeld had their sights well on Iraq in their Project for the 21st American Century way back in the 1990s.

As an observer, Parini writes how incredible it was for Bush to believe that one could change Middle East mentality at gunpoint. In such a place so far violence has only bred more violence, amply shown today in Iraq, where knocking out Saddam. a ruthless dictator, has only turned such ruthlessness into Islamic-backed terrorism with the Shias and the Sunnis slaughtering each other in a battle that is near enough now a civil war. .

Parini says one can only imagine how delighted Osama bin Laden must be to have had the Americans take his bait, In doing so, George W’ has managed to transform bin Laden from a third-rate religous fanatic into a historical figure far more prominent, and possibly even more respected, than the present American President is ever likely to be

Part Two

With mostly ex-oil executives running today’s White House, it is hard to free the minds of university Phds from the fact, that getting the Iraqi oilfields was the main ambition of many prominent US Republicans, especially former oil company executives such as the US Vice President Dick Cheney as well as the President himself. It was also well publicised some time ago, that Condoleeza Rice was also well into oil. It is hard to believe such characters would have forgotten about Iranian oil also, said to be of the highest world quality.

Parini says that James Risen another author, is even blunter than Packer on Iraq. His research is exhaustive and shows that the CIA knew well in advance of the Iraq War that Saddam had no nuclear weapons. Startlingly, Parini suggests that at one time the US even provided Iran with designs for a nuclear bomb. (Possibly this could tie in with Iraq’s attempted building of an atomic installation which was bombed out by the Israelis in 1982. It is also interesting that the US at the time had backed Iraq in the attack on Iran.)

Risen also points out how the US has been able to keep down the true facts about its failures in Afghanistan. How after the Taliban had been able to abolish the growing of drug-crops, Afghanis now supply 87% percent of the world’s heroin, largely owing to American support of the warlords.

Indeed, it seems that the US under George W Bush has done much more harm in this world than good, and Risen believes it will doubtless take decades of patient diplomacy to rectify the situation. According to Parini, one reads such books from well-publicised writers with ever growing dismay.

If all the above is true, us outsiders could well wonder how George W’s main allies, us Angligophilic cousins might finish up in the end, especially if George W' tries to occupy Iran?

Thankyou Bushbred for another well reasoned and researched comment.

Regarding blogging - I don't understand. I mean, many academics have had their own websites for over 10 years now. There's nothing special about blogging - it's just a type of forum or website. Blogging is best suited to discussion-based subjects, and was made popular by websites who offered free space for people to create blogs using easy templates. So again, it's nothing new.

Academics regularly post course information, data, etc. on the net for their students. I'm currently making a website for the benefit of my own students.

And as someone else pointed out, some subjects will suit blogging, some not. Good solid research can take a long time and a lot of hard work. Anyone can fart out a 1000 word comment, as the author has just proved.

cherylmcg, you hit it. Academics do possess valuable information that the rest of us would benefit from knowing. Look at Madeleine Albrights comments about "Axis of Evil." Or what about Sandy Day O'Connor and her recent comments. It is irritating to me that people who have the power to speak up and make a difference at a crucial time do not do so for fear of retaliation. I assume that's the reason. Or maybe these women are just as greedy as the men and are saving it for their memoirs.

Where does that leave us peasants? I'm so tired of good people doing nothing when it is in the worlds best interest that they do so.