I Take Issue With This
As a blogger, we are used to criticism. We have been criticized by the mainstream as well as those amongst us. However, in a recent pice written by William Powers, he believes that the blogger's days are numbered. Needless to say, I disagree.
Have you heard about the tragedy of the blogs? It's very sad. Just a year ago, bloggers were the talk of the planet -- or at least the planet where journalists live.
You couldn't open a newspaper or surf the tube without running into a trend story about this new breed of online writer.
Bloggers had taken down Trent Lott and Dan Rather. Merriam-Webster named "blog" the "No. 1 word of the year" for 2004, while ABC News crowned bloggers the "people of the year." In the media's telling, bloggers were the Gutenbergs of our time, and the Beatles.
That is, until a few weeks ago, when they started looking more like Bode Miller -- overhyped and underperforming. In a new Gallup Poll, only 9 percent of U.S. Internet users said they frequently read blogs. Worse, blogs are flatlining. "It seems the growth in the number of U.S. blog readers was somewhere between nil and negative last year," Gallup said.
Nice "history" lesson above, and yes, we are willing to admit that readership is not nearly what it could be. But Mr. Powers fails to note the main influence that blogs have become in the past couple of years. We are driving the debate. We have done it before (as Mr. Powers will note later) but he overlooks the influence we have right now.
Meanwhile, New York magazine reports that blogging is no longer an everyman's paradise. The suits -- corporate and PR types -- are muscling into the blogosphere, and there are now A-list bloggers, envious B-listers, and countless unread C-listers. In a piece called "Twilight of the Blogs," Slate's Daniel Gross suggested that, even as a business, blogging may be in a kind of bubble.
If there is a bubble, then it is one that will stay constant and consistent. We got back to the influence blogs possess as I did comment on the "Twilight" piece just a few days ago. One cannot look simply at traffic for a blog site. The traffic for the elite amongst the blogosphere will always be there as long as the writer remains relevant. Those that others have deemed as "relevant" or "topical" will always do so until that writer discredits themself. So, the bubble remains constant. The lesser bloggers--those without a "reputation"--will come and go with time with the ebb and flow of the 'Net's neverending tides. Those devoted to doing their "job" on the 'Net will stay. The corporate side was destined to come to the blogosphere, as Hugh Hewitt pointed out in his bestselling book "BLOG", blogs are a natural for business. Advertising, plugs, minor mentions, all of that lends to a businesses success. Word of mouth, as Mr. Powers puts it, will drive the "A-listers" of the blogosphere.
The Chicago Tribune pounced on the blog bust in an editorial dripping with old-media schadenfreude: "You're forgiven if you cling to the conventional wisdom that blogging, like half-pipe snowboarding, enjoys an unrelievedly rich future. Forgiven, but maybe behind the curve."
That entirely depends on the definition of "rich" one refers to. If one means lucrative, many bloggers understand their site will not generate revenue without advertising. So many bloggers opt to avoid the ungainly ads on their sites. Others do use their Internet space, and charge handsomely for it. And those people usually have the traffic to back up the price they charge. We, at the Asylum, will likely, always remain a "C-lister;" virtually ignored by most. What we lack in traffic we feel we make up in quality. Our skills in blogging have already netted us one regular columnist spot on a conservative Internet magazine--CommonConservative.com, and our newest column is right here. But that is the thing about our blogging; we never really desired to gain a ton of recognition. We knew we were small fish. And if the occasional link drifted our way, so much the better, but it was never the sole goal of starting our site. Ours was to inform and comment on politics and current events.
The Tribune was giddy because blogs find themselves in the place where newspapers have been for some time: not half as popular as they'd like to be. Unfortunately for both papers and blogs, this was inevitable. In a world of way-too-much media, no one medium or outlet is ever going to get a firm grip on our attention, no matter how much mindless buzz is lavished on it.
For bloggers, in the beginning, it was not about the "buzz." It was about the truth. We wanted the truth to get out, regardless of who was the focus. The media clearly was not doing it's original job of news reporting. We offered a better, quicker, more balanced, and more credible alternative to the old media. This cannot be denied. The heads sitting upon our wall are a testament to it. Further, the boom provided precisely what I predicted it would; a flood of new bloggers hitting the 'Net. The difference between now and then was simple. Who survived? How many are still "active?" We started this site last year, but Thomas and I were blogging back in 2004, during the heyday. And for those that still discount us as amateurs or "flash-in-the-pans," you are incorrect. Bloggers like the elites, and sites like ours who have a passion to continue doing what we are doing will continue to do so for as long as this medium exists. If nothing else, for those who became burned out on the phenomenon, they will retunr later, or they will not. True bloggers will always be here.
Just as it makes perfect sense that people are fleeing newspapers -- there so many other options -- it also makes sense that they aren't exactly flocking to blogs. There are millions of blogs now. Who has time for that? The blog explosion of the last few years has made it much harder for any new blog to draw an audience and succeed. It's just math.
Mr. Powers asks "Who has time for that?" Indeed, Thomas and I used to read close to fifty different blogs on a daily basis. That has been substantially reduced--by half--and the reason is not how time consuming it is, but our change in perspective. Why act like newspapers, and simply parrot what we have read when we can comment on it, and break other news. That is not to say that we do not report from other blogs. We do. However, we report their reaction, and then our reaction. Ours might be critical of their position, or might be cheering that position. In the end, it comes down to what we do best which is debate. We drive the debate. Harriet Miers? The blogs exploded on both sides of the nominee, and we drove the debate against her. Dubai Ports? The bloggers are all over it, too, on evenly divided battle lines. Able Danger? We helped Rep. Weldon drive it to the forefront; had we not it would have been buried by the media.
In my browser's Favorites list, I have a folder called "Good Blogs." It has fewer than two dozen links, to blogs I truly enjoy and visit often. I keep the list short on purpose. I meet new blogs all the time, through word of mouth and serendipity, and we have some nice moments together. But I don't usually crave a second date. Life is too short.
The need for a second date depends on the content when we arrive at a new site. Most of those we do visit do not come from word of mouth. It is through links from other sites. New readers are acquired in this fashion. We have done it, and we have visited sites through our regular sites that are solid contenders for the "B-lister" tier. As of right now, our links list on our "favorites" includes thirty blogs from a variety of areas. From "God-blogs" to "Blawgs" (or law blogs) to "Mil-blogs", and all in addition to the twenty or so political blogs we hit. That is daily. It really does not take much time, and one can get the gist of the debate unfolding on each site, the points made, and whether it truly needs to be touched on.
Evidently, others feel the same way. So blogs are not about to conquer the world. But does that mean they have failed, as the new headlines suggest? Hardly. In fact, I think the end of hype-fueled blog mania might be the best thing that could happen to blogs, because it had created such absurd expectations.
Who predicted these "expectations?" It was not the level-headed bloggers. It might have been the media, but it was not the blogosphere. We knew our limits. We have challenged the media in sites such as Red State or Pajamas Media. But we have never decided we could conquer the world. Topple a couple of anchors, humble a senator or two, but that is about it. Sheesh, talk about a "god" complex from Mr. Powers.
Media serve three major functions: 1) convenience (organization of news and information in user-friendly formats); 2) truth-telling (digging up important stories and holding powerful people accountable); and 3) pleasure (the sheer fun of reading, listening, or watching). Newspapers thrived for as long as they did because they were good at all three. And they've declined as they've lost their competitive edge in these same areas, especially convenience and pleasure.
Though blogs are young, they've already proven adept at all three functions. Many are convenient harvesters and organizers. Some are fearless truth-tellers. And the best are a total pleasure to follow. If they're doing all this now, imagine what they'll be like in 10 years.
Precisely why I stated that if this is a bubble, it is a constant one. Those with skill and passion will continue while many others have been abandoned. Even us lowly "C-listers" will still be around for the media and the elites to kick around, but we will not simplyt shrink from existence. Some of us, like Thomas and I, have had an interesting couple of months with links coming from other sites, which brought first-time visitors, or return visitors.
The other thing blogs have going for them is that most bloggers are not in it for money -- they do it for love. The mainstream outlets would now have us believe that this is a bit pathetic. Just look at those dreadful audience numbers, the scanty profits. I say 20 million or so bloggers know otherwise. Once they were up, and now they're down. It's the classic arc of an establishment-media fad. It's weird that so many bloggers bought into it, given their feelings about the establishment. Never mind: They'll be back.
While Mr. Powers seems to think that blogging is simply a fad, he fails to see those actually blazing the trail. would he discount Michael Yon for his outstanding coverage of the GWOT in Iraq? How about Pajamas Media and their ability to unite over 200 bloggers under one banner--be they right, left, or center--to challenge the media with their reporting? Whereas he, like the old media, can believe that blogs are nearing their twilight I disagree. I believe that blogs, in general, are about to level out, but all in all, we are just getting started.
The Bunny ;)
As a blogger, we are used to criticism. We have been criticized by the mainstream as well as those amongst us. However, in a recent pice written by William Powers, he believes that the blogger's days are numbered. Needless to say, I disagree.
Have you heard about the tragedy of the blogs? It's very sad. Just a year ago, bloggers were the talk of the planet -- or at least the planet where journalists live.
You couldn't open a newspaper or surf the tube without running into a trend story about this new breed of online writer.
Bloggers had taken down Trent Lott and Dan Rather. Merriam-Webster named "blog" the "No. 1 word of the year" for 2004, while ABC News crowned bloggers the "people of the year." In the media's telling, bloggers were the Gutenbergs of our time, and the Beatles.
That is, until a few weeks ago, when they started looking more like Bode Miller -- overhyped and underperforming. In a new Gallup Poll, only 9 percent of U.S. Internet users said they frequently read blogs. Worse, blogs are flatlining. "It seems the growth in the number of U.S. blog readers was somewhere between nil and negative last year," Gallup said.
Nice "history" lesson above, and yes, we are willing to admit that readership is not nearly what it could be. But Mr. Powers fails to note the main influence that blogs have become in the past couple of years. We are driving the debate. We have done it before (as Mr. Powers will note later) but he overlooks the influence we have right now.
Meanwhile, New York magazine reports that blogging is no longer an everyman's paradise. The suits -- corporate and PR types -- are muscling into the blogosphere, and there are now A-list bloggers, envious B-listers, and countless unread C-listers. In a piece called "Twilight of the Blogs," Slate's Daniel Gross suggested that, even as a business, blogging may be in a kind of bubble.
If there is a bubble, then it is one that will stay constant and consistent. We got back to the influence blogs possess as I did comment on the "Twilight" piece just a few days ago. One cannot look simply at traffic for a blog site. The traffic for the elite amongst the blogosphere will always be there as long as the writer remains relevant. Those that others have deemed as "relevant" or "topical" will always do so until that writer discredits themself. So, the bubble remains constant. The lesser bloggers--those without a "reputation"--will come and go with time with the ebb and flow of the 'Net's neverending tides. Those devoted to doing their "job" on the 'Net will stay. The corporate side was destined to come to the blogosphere, as Hugh Hewitt pointed out in his bestselling book "BLOG", blogs are a natural for business. Advertising, plugs, minor mentions, all of that lends to a businesses success. Word of mouth, as Mr. Powers puts it, will drive the "A-listers" of the blogosphere.
The Chicago Tribune pounced on the blog bust in an editorial dripping with old-media schadenfreude: "You're forgiven if you cling to the conventional wisdom that blogging, like half-pipe snowboarding, enjoys an unrelievedly rich future. Forgiven, but maybe behind the curve."
That entirely depends on the definition of "rich" one refers to. If one means lucrative, many bloggers understand their site will not generate revenue without advertising. So many bloggers opt to avoid the ungainly ads on their sites. Others do use their Internet space, and charge handsomely for it. And those people usually have the traffic to back up the price they charge. We, at the Asylum, will likely, always remain a "C-lister;" virtually ignored by most. What we lack in traffic we feel we make up in quality. Our skills in blogging have already netted us one regular columnist spot on a conservative Internet magazine--CommonConservative.com, and our newest column is right here. But that is the thing about our blogging; we never really desired to gain a ton of recognition. We knew we were small fish. And if the occasional link drifted our way, so much the better, but it was never the sole goal of starting our site. Ours was to inform and comment on politics and current events.
The Tribune was giddy because blogs find themselves in the place where newspapers have been for some time: not half as popular as they'd like to be. Unfortunately for both papers and blogs, this was inevitable. In a world of way-too-much media, no one medium or outlet is ever going to get a firm grip on our attention, no matter how much mindless buzz is lavished on it.
For bloggers, in the beginning, it was not about the "buzz." It was about the truth. We wanted the truth to get out, regardless of who was the focus. The media clearly was not doing it's original job of news reporting. We offered a better, quicker, more balanced, and more credible alternative to the old media. This cannot be denied. The heads sitting upon our wall are a testament to it. Further, the boom provided precisely what I predicted it would; a flood of new bloggers hitting the 'Net. The difference between now and then was simple. Who survived? How many are still "active?" We started this site last year, but Thomas and I were blogging back in 2004, during the heyday. And for those that still discount us as amateurs or "flash-in-the-pans," you are incorrect. Bloggers like the elites, and sites like ours who have a passion to continue doing what we are doing will continue to do so for as long as this medium exists. If nothing else, for those who became burned out on the phenomenon, they will retunr later, or they will not. True bloggers will always be here.
Just as it makes perfect sense that people are fleeing newspapers -- there so many other options -- it also makes sense that they aren't exactly flocking to blogs. There are millions of blogs now. Who has time for that? The blog explosion of the last few years has made it much harder for any new blog to draw an audience and succeed. It's just math.
Mr. Powers asks "Who has time for that?" Indeed, Thomas and I used to read close to fifty different blogs on a daily basis. That has been substantially reduced--by half--and the reason is not how time consuming it is, but our change in perspective. Why act like newspapers, and simply parrot what we have read when we can comment on it, and break other news. That is not to say that we do not report from other blogs. We do. However, we report their reaction, and then our reaction. Ours might be critical of their position, or might be cheering that position. In the end, it comes down to what we do best which is debate. We drive the debate. Harriet Miers? The blogs exploded on both sides of the nominee, and we drove the debate against her. Dubai Ports? The bloggers are all over it, too, on evenly divided battle lines. Able Danger? We helped Rep. Weldon drive it to the forefront; had we not it would have been buried by the media.
In my browser's Favorites list, I have a folder called "Good Blogs." It has fewer than two dozen links, to blogs I truly enjoy and visit often. I keep the list short on purpose. I meet new blogs all the time, through word of mouth and serendipity, and we have some nice moments together. But I don't usually crave a second date. Life is too short.
The need for a second date depends on the content when we arrive at a new site. Most of those we do visit do not come from word of mouth. It is through links from other sites. New readers are acquired in this fashion. We have done it, and we have visited sites through our regular sites that are solid contenders for the "B-lister" tier. As of right now, our links list on our "favorites" includes thirty blogs from a variety of areas. From "God-blogs" to "Blawgs" (or law blogs) to "Mil-blogs", and all in addition to the twenty or so political blogs we hit. That is daily. It really does not take much time, and one can get the gist of the debate unfolding on each site, the points made, and whether it truly needs to be touched on.
Evidently, others feel the same way. So blogs are not about to conquer the world. But does that mean they have failed, as the new headlines suggest? Hardly. In fact, I think the end of hype-fueled blog mania might be the best thing that could happen to blogs, because it had created such absurd expectations.
Who predicted these "expectations?" It was not the level-headed bloggers. It might have been the media, but it was not the blogosphere. We knew our limits. We have challenged the media in sites such as Red State or Pajamas Media. But we have never decided we could conquer the world. Topple a couple of anchors, humble a senator or two, but that is about it. Sheesh, talk about a "god" complex from Mr. Powers.
Media serve three major functions: 1) convenience (organization of news and information in user-friendly formats); 2) truth-telling (digging up important stories and holding powerful people accountable); and 3) pleasure (the sheer fun of reading, listening, or watching). Newspapers thrived for as long as they did because they were good at all three. And they've declined as they've lost their competitive edge in these same areas, especially convenience and pleasure.
Though blogs are young, they've already proven adept at all three functions. Many are convenient harvesters and organizers. Some are fearless truth-tellers. And the best are a total pleasure to follow. If they're doing all this now, imagine what they'll be like in 10 years.
Precisely why I stated that if this is a bubble, it is a constant one. Those with skill and passion will continue while many others have been abandoned. Even us lowly "C-listers" will still be around for the media and the elites to kick around, but we will not simplyt shrink from existence. Some of us, like Thomas and I, have had an interesting couple of months with links coming from other sites, which brought first-time visitors, or return visitors.
The other thing blogs have going for them is that most bloggers are not in it for money -- they do it for love. The mainstream outlets would now have us believe that this is a bit pathetic. Just look at those dreadful audience numbers, the scanty profits. I say 20 million or so bloggers know otherwise. Once they were up, and now they're down. It's the classic arc of an establishment-media fad. It's weird that so many bloggers bought into it, given their feelings about the establishment. Never mind: They'll be back.
While Mr. Powers seems to think that blogging is simply a fad, he fails to see those actually blazing the trail. would he discount Michael Yon for his outstanding coverage of the GWOT in Iraq? How about Pajamas Media and their ability to unite over 200 bloggers under one banner--be they right, left, or center--to challenge the media with their reporting? Whereas he, like the old media, can believe that blogs are nearing their twilight I disagree. I believe that blogs, in general, are about to level out, but all in all, we are just getting started.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home