August 12, 2005

Can't you women hear the buzz?

You might wonder what it's like reading the email that pours into the Instapundit gmailbox. How much of it is bitching about Glenn being gone?

Well, there's this:
Clueless Ann. I don't expect to agree with your guest bloggers but I do expect them to at least blog about something worth reading once in a while. With all the under reported stories buzzing around the blogosphere how did Ann and Megan miss all of them? I can't remember the last time I saw an Instapundit where nothing was worth following up on.

Why's he picking on me (and Megan)? Why no mention of Michael? Sexist!

There's only about one message a day like that, actually. But that email does hint of the burden of being Instapundit. I'm not really feeling that burden myself, because I feel I've been called over to do my thing over there, not to imitate Glenn. I assume the way Glenn writes his blog is what he enjoys doing, but I would find doing that a full-time job, not an energizing avocation -- which is how I experience this blog.

Notice the emailer's notion that Instapundit exists to put a stamp of approval on stories. Blogs are talking about X and you haven't acknowledged it yet! There are an awful lot of political blogs that crank out generic posts, expressing the usual outrage in the same canned language. And yet somehow they feel entitled. Because there's a buzz. Look at me! I'm part of a swarm!

And yeah, I realize I'm acting like the very NYT I just tweaked over there.

7 comments:

Sloanasaurus said...

Maybe the reader is upset that you haven't linked to any nano-technology stories.

Maybe it's girl crush.

Everybody has a gripe. No one is satisfied. More proof that socialism will work.

Steven Taylor said...

Hmm, the reasoning seems to go like this: the only way a story is validated is for Glenn to endorse it, but since Glenn isn't arround to endorse anything, nothing is worthy, yet it is still your fault for not, well, being Glenn.

My guess is that if all the postings were under Glenn's byline, but actually being posted by you, Megan, Michael, etc. then there would have been no gripes about the lousy nature of the postings of late.

Ann Althouse said...

Steven: Thanks. Yeah, it's like How do I know what's real, without Glenn???

Kathy Herrmann said...

"With all the under reported stories buzzing around the blogosphere how did Ann and Megan miss all of them?"

Observation 1: If stories are under-reported, then how are you supposed to know about them? Oh yeah, that's supposed to be Instapundit's job as an aggregator, right?

Observation 2: I respect the force of nature Glenn has created but I guess I diverge from the herd. I don't read Instapundit very much any more because it feels like too much work. Too many criptic posts that require me to jump hither and yon to find out what they're about. I read a specific blog mostly because I want to know what the specific author thinks -- and when I do spend time at Instapundit, the posts that grab my attention are ones where Glenn shares his opinion.

...Now looking up hoping lighting doesn't strike me for my bloggy sacriledge.

Ann Althouse said...

Tiger: re point #1: There's definitely a paradox there, saying everyone's talking about it and it's underreported.

re point #2: That style of linking is done to send traffic to the site. There's a way of linking where you copy the other person's writing and comment in such a way that most readers don't click on the link. I think Glenn wants to help other bloggers by sending them traffic. I've gotten both kinds of links on many occasions and I've very aware of the difference in how much traffic you get. The style of linking could easily make the difference between getting 600 and 6,000 visitors.

gs said...

Ann: Instapunditwise, I noticed your post about the UW.

Google 'UW'. The state of my karmic account restrains me from saying more...

Bruce Hayden said...

I agree with the problem of too cryptic of posts. Thank goodness the AnnPundit has not gone that route here.

What I like is when there is enough of an article for me to get an idea of whether or not I want to follow up and read the whole article or not. Maybe a paragraph or so. Here, we also often get some of Ann's analysis or comments too.

Of course, Glenn's priorities and ours are more than likely different. I really don't care that much if someone gets a lot of hits or not. Sure, this may negate some of the monetary angle for some sites, but, unfortunately, I don't really care.