Blogger Merit

Alex Rosmiller takes aim at "the myth of meritocracy" as it applies to the blogosphere. I think most of what he says he right -- despite the lack of barriers to entry, there's still a very real sense in which things like timing and social networks are crucial to success in the political blogosphere.

There is, though, one sense in which merit really does play a larger role in the blogosphere than in the dread MSM. That is that, overwhelmingly, the only way for a blogger to succeed in having a lot of readers is for a lot of people (relative to the modest scale of blog enterprises) to genuinely find the blog worth reading. The MSM doesn't really work that way. A newspaper is all bundled together. So as long as The New York Times is worth reading (which it is) and Bill Kristol has a New York Times column (which he does) lots of people are going to see Kristol's columns. Him keeping his job just depends on him continuing to have the favor of the NYT high command. And then the mere fact of his presence on the op-ed page makes the columns "important" and worth reading for anyone who wants to participate in "the conversation."

Similarly, notwithstanding the unbearable inanity of Tim Russert, nobody can make it in big-time politics without submitting to the Russert Probe and a Russert interview with a major politician is, as such, a major news event worth watching. So Meet The Press can be a successful enterprise without anyone even liking it. The much larger number of distribution channels on the internet makes this kind of phenomenon -- where you become important just because someone gave you an important job -- is much less likely. Good blogs can go unfairly neglected, and bad blogs can become popular, but popular blogs are at least well-liked. I may not care for Instapundit, but Instapundit's readers really do like it, which is a real contrast with the typical MSM situation.

Comments

Re "nobody can make it in big-time politics without submitting to the Russert Probe "
------------
Is that where they check for cancer polyps?

Posted by Don Williams | April 16, 2008 12:32 PM

Less true now that newspapers can count click-throughs.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 16, 2008 12:35 PM

Cancer polyps in the large intestine?

What does the medical exam have to with things?

Posted by Don Williams | April 16, 2008 12:37 PM

is this a question of direct vs. indirect (proxy) linkage? A blog can measure its direct and indirect linkage quantitatively. Inferences about the blogs popularity and audience can be made directly from the clicks and where the clicks come from.

TV has ratings agencies that provide a proxy for popularity and can only be, for now, indirect measurements. The influence of the show can be inferred from references made in articles/op-eds/etc. As long as there is a ghost of a chance of looking good in front of an influential and talkative audience, people will run the Russert treadmill.

pointy-headed (haired?) geeky liberal bloggers with freaky and sometimes (but not this time) articulate posters, will show some influence by gathering the right audience -- helped of course by the historical influence of his employers' main product.

We could run a new reality series based on "american idol" where we try to find and exploit (for money this time) bloggers. maybe... just maybe we could put MY on the judges panel (randy paula or simon? hmmm)... next week the theme will be .... "russert goes to the video"

Posted by mike c | April 16, 2008 12:51 PM

It seems true that a blog can't succeed without reaching a threshold of genuine fans, but the phenomenon of blogs attaining "must-read" status simply because they have a high readership and are perceived to be influential is I think a real one. Interestingly, the blogs that seem to have attained this status also seem to be the ones most integrated into the mainstream news media (I'm thinking primarily of Drudge here, but HuffPo may be able to claim this status as well). Matt is probably right that this is an uncommon phenomenon, but I think it's still an important one.

Posted by phensley | April 16, 2008 12:53 PM

I don't understand the Russert part of Matthew's argument. I mean, don't people have the ability to turn off Russert (in a way they can't get a Times without Kristol or Krugman)?

Also, I assume newspapers have at least some indication of what opinion columns their readers prefer, whether it is reader surveys or now (as SCMT indicates) click-throughs. It can't be solely what the E-I-C likes.

Posted by Al | April 16, 2008 12:55 PM

Refuting Matt in two words:

Jonah Goldberg

Posted by Rob | April 16, 2008 1:01 PM

I used to relish my belief that my blog was simply neglected. Then I wrote a one-line joke that got me 5,000 page views in 2 days, after which I went right back to low double-digit traffic. Now I know I just suck.

Posted by MikeT | April 16, 2008 1:05 PM

"I may not care for Instapundit, but Instapundit's readers really do like it"

I would venture that liking Instapundit is irrelevant for a significant number of Instapundit's readers. He's an agenda-setter on the right and gives direction to their online movement, for what it's worth, and many turn to him for signals as to what to emphasize that day.

The situation is similar on the left, except we don't "follow" all that well (and a not insignificant portion of the online left exists to reflexively disagree with everything they read on, say, Kos).

So: you're wrong?

Posted by ethann salto | April 16, 2008 1:06 PM

"I may not care for Instapundit, but Instapundit's readers really do like it"

I would venture that liking Instapundit is irrelevant for a significant number of Instapundit's readers. He's an agenda-setter on the right and gives direction to their online movement, for what it's worth, and many turn to him for signals as to what to emphasize that day.

The situation is similar on the left, except we don't "follow" all that well (and a not insignificant portion of the online left exists to reflexively disagree with everything they read on, say, Kos).

So: you're wrong?

Posted by ethann salto | April 16, 2008 1:10 PM

Re "I may not care for Instapundit, but Instapundit's readers really do like it "
----------
That's because Instapundit doesn't allow comments so his moronic readers never find out what a stupid fuck he is.

First rule of fascist cults -- shut up and drink your KoolAid. Did Adolf ask for comments at the Nuremberg Rallies?

Posted by Don Williams | April 16, 2008 1:16 PM

What I have wondered about for years is who has been paying for Instapundit's bandwidth and database adminstration?

But McCain-Feingold doesn't let you look inside Glenn Reynolds' Paypal TipJar.

As Microsoft says, that's not a bug, that's a feature.

Posted by Don Williams | April 16, 2008 1:20 PM

Mickey Kaus is the obvious counterexample, but the basic argument seems right.

Posted by Clambone | April 16, 2008 1:24 PM

The issue here seems to be one of how much an established-and-trusted brand can have sucky contributors and still maintain its status. Pace Matt, there exist personality-based MSM outlets (TV talk shows come to mind) that are analogous to blogs in that they pretty much stand or fall on the efforts of a single personality.

It seems to me that it's too soon, historically, to be making this particular generalization. Blogs are a very new medium. It may be in ten years that the Atlantic-brand-blog draws traffic on its own, regardless of who its contributors are, in the same way that people read the New York Times despite William Kristol et al. being in it.

Posted by James Gary | April 16, 2008 1:47 PM

Well, Matt's 'Her Name Is Her Name' post is about as brutal a refutation of the myth of meritocracy in the blogoshpere as you could find.

Yglesias writes above: "still a very real sense in which things like timing and social networks are crucial to success in the political blogosphere."

"Still a very real sense" being a sad attempt (probably not conscious) to water down the hard, scary truth that follows.

Go read 'Her Name Is Her Name'.

Oh, you'll see just how "crucial" these "networks" are.

(It might interest Matt to know these "networks" used to be called "connections" and people were a lot more honest about the role elite colleges and prepschools, alongside family connections, played in them.)

Posted by Self-awareness sometimes escapes young lefties | April 16, 2008 1:56 PM

There are two major problems with Matt's thesis:

First, it's incredibly masturbatory "Hey, look, I have merit!"

Second, it's demonstrably untrue--at least if we define merit as not equal to "attention-grabbing." As others have pointed out here, there are many successful blogs that are simply controversial or pandering. I don't equate either of those qualities with "merit"--and neither does Matt, in his more cogent moments, I suspect.

Posted by vorkosigan1 | April 16, 2008 2:06 PM

There are two major problems with Matt's thesis:

First, it's incredibly masturbatory "Hey, look, I have merit!"

Second, it's demonstrably untrue--at least if we define merit as not equal to "attention-grabbing." As others have pointed out here, there are many successful blogs that are simply controversial or pandering. I don't equate either of those qualities with "merit"--and neither does Matt, in his more cogent moments, I suspect.

Posted by vorkosigan1 | April 16, 2008 2:08 PM

As others have hinted, it's not just that blog readers have more freedom to choose only what they want to read; it's also that blog traffic is accurately and quickly measured. Whereas nobody knows just how many dead-tree copies of Kristol's propaganda actually get read.

Posted by Richard Cownie | April 16, 2008 2:42 PM

There are two major problems with Matt's thesis:

First, it's incredibly masturbatory "Hey, look, I have merit!"

How is that a problem? How does it affect the thesis' correctness?

Posted by Rambuncle | April 16, 2008 2:50 PM

"Second, it's demonstrably untrue--at least if we define merit as not equal to "attention-grabbing." As others have pointed out here, there are many successful blogs that are simply controversial or"

OK, suggest some other measures of "merit" that are appropriate for daily newspaper journalism and blogs. If it isn't "attention-grabbing", you're not going to read it right away; if you don't read it right away, it's gone tomorrow.

There are places for long deep articles and analyses: books (e.g. "Heads in the Sand" :-), academic journals, monthly magazines. But that isn't what blogs do. And it isn't what newspaper OpEd columnists do much of either (though Krugman, apart from his recent Obama-bashing, has done a great job of expressing coherent arguments about important issues in that cramped format).

Posted by Richard Cownie | April 16, 2008 3:08 PM

I genuinely don't say this to be snarky or critical-- I would love it if Matt would reflect on the fact that a)the blogs on the Atlantic's blog roll are given extra cachet and legitimacy, in the eyes of many, by being the Atlantic's blog roll (and the Atlantic is definitely old medi); and b) that every one of the Atlantic's bloggers is a graduate of an Ivy League university. Matt has been very upfront with the fact that those universities aren't purely meritocratic, but I'd like for him to extend that logic towards considering his place at the Atlantic.

Posted by Freddie | April 16, 2008 3:33 PM

Well, maybe merit doesn't apply...{grin}

Here are a couple of potential measures:

Awards won

Praise by academia

Praise by competitors

Praise by experts

Probably, any real measurement of merit would be very expensive and time-consuming--similar to what some thinktanks do in looking at political bias in television newscasts (I'm talking about the legit studies, not the right-wing axe-grinding ones).

And self-serving comments are inherently suspect. Doesn't mean they're wrong; just that they're suspect.

Posted by vorkosigan1 | April 16, 2008 4:06 PM

Re vorkosigan's comment "Well, maybe merit doesn't apply...{grin}"
-----------

1) You forgot having to beg blog readers to buy his book. And he doesn't even have to pay a mortgage or buy health insurance for a baby yet.
(You listening, Sara? I'm giving you pearls here)

2) And on occasion he practically offers oral sex for a WiFi connection.

Meanwhile Bill O'Reilly , Ann Counter and Rush Limbaugh count their millions while our tribune of the people bravely endures.

His only comfort the kudos he receives from a grateful readership.

It's not fair, I tell you.

Posted by Don Williams | April 16, 2008 4:26 PM

The exception to this is The Corner, where I have to put up with Katherine Jane Lopez's insipid cheerleading to get interesting commentary from Ramesh, Derbyshire and Jim Manzi

Posted by TW Andrews | April 16, 2008 11:37 PM

I will say, most of the Corner are right-wing sycophants, but at least Derbyshire seems to have his own opinions. Some of them are stupid in the extreme (see his opinions on the school shootings), but at least they are HIS opinions.

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 17, 2008 2:41 AM