
Why (individual) Blogging Is Dead - Objective Measurement - billpg
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001445.html
======
pohl
I'm a little confused by this. Has the word "dead" come to mean "not actively
pursued by money grubbers"? I swear I still haven't lost hope that some day
that word will appear in a tech headline to describe something that's actually
going to fall into disuse.

This article was worth it, though, because it had a link to an older
criticism, by Seth, of twitter: "A highly ranked person is free to attack
anyone lower down the ranks, as there's no way for the wronged party to
effectively reply to the same readers."

I hadn't thought about it that way. It makes sense now why the media is
enamored with it: it allows an asymmetry similar to that of television and
radio.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/07/twitter-
is-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/07/twitter-is-a-suckers-
game)

~~~
raganwald
+++++, Thanks, would read again!

I thought the whole point of blogging when it appeared was that anybody could
write and anybody _would_ write. It wasn't restricted to those who could
afford a printing press or a pulpit.

The "A-list bloggers" aren't really bloggers in that sense, they're new media
barons who happen to blog. If they move to twitter, they become new media
barons who happen to twitter.

~~~
MicahWedemeyer
And few if any of them abandon their blogs. They just try to get their readers
to follow them in both mediums.

Besides, nobody makes money of twitter directly. It's just a platform for
sending people to your blog...where you make money.

------
MicahWedemeyer
Once again, someone declares that twitter killed blogging..but they do it on
their blog.

Please try to explain why twitter has killed blogging in under 140 characters.

~~~
jseliger
Seriously. I wrote this comment, which (unfortunately), verges on feeding the
trolls:

I'm skeptical of the (provocative) title: individuals will blog to the extent
they want to, as they always have, and those with something to say will find a
way to say it. As for "professional" blogging, I think to a large extent it's
a myth, as I described in <a href="[http://blog.seliger.com/2009/06/17/youre-
not-going-to-be-a-p...](http://blog.seliger.com/2009/06/17/youre-not-going-to-
be-a-pro/>Youre) not going to a be professional blogger, no matter what the
WSJ tells you</a>.

When people tell you a medium has died, it usually means that medium has
matured, at least somewhat, but the idea of being able to speak to anyone,
anywhere, anytime, anyhow (as long as the receiver cares to listen) is going
to stay, probably in some form that resembles blogging.

"blog reader-program development has ceased"

Shoot: <a
href="[http://www.macworld.com/article/142407/2009/08/gruml.html...](http://www.macworld.com/article/142407/2009/08/gruml.html>someone)
forgot to tell the developers of Gruml and Byline</a>. Alternatively, someone
isn't paying much attention.

Regarding Twitter, I like the comment in <a
href="[http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/17/why-i-dont-use-
twitter/...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/17/why-i-dont-use-twitter/>Why)
I don’t use Twitter</a>: “What can be said in 140 characters is either trivial
or abridged; in the first case it would be better not to say it at all, and in
the second case it would be better to give it the space it deserves.”

------
adrianwaj
One of the reason's it's dead are headline fails. Who's going to subscribe to
a blog if the headline is bad or misrepresentative of the article? I'd rather
pickup an item on Twitter that's been pre-read by someone I've vetted, and who
can prepare me for what to expect.

