James Joyner has a very good rundown. Personally, I miss the old more amateurish days in a lot of ways. But then again, almost by definition everyone's going to enjoy a hobby they do on the side more than they enjoy their job, and as far as jobs go I consider myself extremely lucky to have been able to turn my hobby into one.
« Scaling Newspapers Down | Main | The Case »
The Evolution of the (Political) Blogosphere
08 Jun 2008 05:48 pm
Comments (20)
How can you 'miss the old amateurish days' when you are still in them?
If Matt's amateurish where does that leave a snarky anonymous blog fly like you?
Anonymous would have meant I left no name, as opposed to leaving my first name. It's right there, see?
Secondly, I think Matt has not escaped the accusation of snark. See roughly 83 percent of his posts.
Finally, where did I claim to be professional?
And to make this into an infinite hall of mirrors, where does it leave someone like yourself, commmenting on a snarky 'anonymous' blog fly like myself?
Nicely done, James, and correct, too.
Not to mention that The Atlantic's IT team is about as amateurish as they come, with their stupid "Internal Server Errors" every other post.
But, hey, this is where a "wannabe pundit" should be until he gets that call from the New York Times or the Washington Post to REALLY sell out.
Maybe when he turns forty...
I'm sure the two of you think these comments reflect poorly on Matt, and not yourselves. "I'm not anonymous, I said my name is James." Bravo James.
Bill
I thought the convention with using quote marks was to then actually quote what the person said or wrote, not making something up - surely a professional wouldn't do such a thing.
As per the anonymity, if you are still saying that I am anonymous, then it's the same level of anonymity as yourself.
I apologise if I have missed the point of how your posts have inherently more authority than mine or Richard's - surely Richard's have more, since he adds his surname?
And now you are now commenting on the comments made on your comments on a "snarky anonymous blog fly" like myself? Lady of Shanghai already.
Also, amateur in it's original sense meant someone who did the act for love as opposed to payment, and as Matt seems to suggest above, he still does love what he does, my post can be taken both ways.
"Bravo James" - that's dangerously close to snark, Bill.
"Not to mention that The Atlantic's IT team is about as amateurish as they come, with their stupid "Internal Server Errors" every other post."
This cannot be repeated enough.
I really wish you would comment on the fact that you are now a part of the "blog establishment", your name now under the Atlantic masthead, and the way in which the supposed democratization of Web 2.0 (or whatever) has just devolved into the same old rigidity and structure. (I believe every single blogger under the Atlantic's imprimatur has a degree from an Ivy league university, for example.) I also wish you would talk about this weird wall between yourself and your readership, where sometimes you respond to comments and to reader feedback, but often you don't, and seem to selectively "hear" different comments. (And don't answer emails, for that matter.)
Of course, I understand why you probably won't do those things.
Fuck off you giblets, Yglesias = legend and I'd defend him to the last trench.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Tell us again how you used to walk five miles up hill both ways, through knee deep snow to get to school, grandpa-- and tell us about what dinosaurs were really like!
Freddie's right here.
Ball less wonder Matt can't even answer two simple "yes/no/I don't know" questions about his supposed expertise - foreign policy - from a reader. Even after he said on the blog he would respond to questions about his book via email.
Of course, he learned this horseshit from his mentor, Josh Marshall, who never responded to posts from his readers - and who in fact never even posts any more in a section with comments (at least Matt hasn't resorted to that - no doubt because the software doesn't support it or management won't let him) - except with drive by snark and hypocritically banning people behind the scenes after explicitly promising everyone he wouldn't do that.
At least MJ Rosenberg willingly engages his readers at TPM and probably gets more respect from the readers than Josh does. Matt could learn something from MJ.
He could at least express a definite position on the most critical foreign policy issue of the day, i.e., Iran.
And we're supposed to take this "wannabe pundit" seriously? Please.
Well, speaking personally I do take MY seriously, and like his work. I just find it weird that a guy who does as much media-criticism as he does-- and is apparently happy to go meta when it makes sense-- doesn't talk a little bit about his place in the blogosphere, and the degree to which the supposedly egalitarian nature of blogs has been co-opted by traditional media like the Atlantic.
Well, aside from the fact that the mainstream co-opts EVERYTHING outside itself sooner or later, from punk to kinky sex, it's no surprise that (some) blogs end up going mainstream.
That doesn't mean the entire "blogosphere" (whatever the hell that is outside of Matt's fevered imagination) has gone "mainstream".
What I wonder about is where did you get the idea that Matt was EVER "outside" the mainstream? In what respect? He's always been intending to be an "Establishment pundit".
For that matter, what was ever "Web 2.0" about his blog (or blogs in general)? Blogs are just Web sites people can comment on (if allowed - look at Josh Marshall, where the comments are kept on a whole different section of the site - and never responded to).
Web 2.0 is supposed to be about "social" action, linking, interacting. Blogs were always about pontificating and then banning people who disagreed with you (again, Josh Marshall as perfect example). People started linking between blogs to establish some "credibility".
You're right about the lack of interaction here. But Matt was never some sort of "revolutionary" who was going to push the Web forward in the arena of politics.
Blogs went mainstream when somebody figured out that corporations needed to have blogs to push their identity and interests in this so-called "blogosphere". I really don't see it working out all that well for them, since the only thing the readers care about is the person blogging, not the company picking up the tab.
I suppose The Atlantic gets some benefit from having a bunch of bloggers. Presumably people do click onto other pages of the site, read articles, maybe end up subscribing or whatever. But I doubt it contributes much to the bottom line or establishes a much better rep for the organization than they had before. I suppose there are exceptions.
Where this situation is not "egalitarian" is the support the blogger gets from the bigger organization than just a one-man-band hosted at an ISP. That started, I guess, when multiple blogs hosted on one site started (I don't know when or who started that.) Or maybe when corps got involved in blogging.
But I don't see that as changing the fundamental nature of blogging. Most blogs are still individual. A blog like Matt's is just another, more frequent, version of a newspaper column. I don't see much of a real distinction between Bill Kristol's pieces in the NYT and Matt's posts. It's still just "punditry".
I guess the only difference between a blog and a pundit is that the pundit gets some sort of "credibility" by being supported by some organization, rather than just being another "ranter" running his own site.
In other words, it's all "appearances" and no substance - which pretty much describes Matt's posts and this whole blog most of the time.
As interesting as it is to dissect bloggers, I'm curious to find out more about blog-readers. I have my own blog, nothing major or serious, with my own little contingent of loyal readers. I'm assuming that Yglesias has the same thing, only he has more loyal readers (like M above) as well as more opportunities to get "read the whole thing" type links from other bloggers.
How is that loyalty different from brand loyalty to other media types? Is anyone that loyal to their local newspaper? Their favorite news broadcast?
Why is it that with traditional media forms the overall dynamic seems to be a mixture of love-hate, and yet with blogs it's either mostly love or hate? (ie, you love Yglesias but hate Instapundit, or vice versa)
This is probably more important to study than who's blogging and who's making money.
Ditto Freddie.
"I guess the only difference between a blog and a pundit is that the pundit gets some sort of "credibility" by being supported by some organization, rather than just being another "ranter" running his own site."
Really? Doesn't "money" come into it at all?
Wouldn't pros use a spellchecker?
I miss Billmon.
When your hobby is being a pretentious douche there are numerous ways to turn that pastime in to paid employment.
Bah! You can't ignore me forever, Yglesias!
Sure he can, Freddie! He's done it to me for months now.
Comments closed June 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
How can you 'miss the old amateurish days' when you are still in them?
Posted by James | June 8, 2008 6:00 PM