The Pajamas Media Death Pool.
UPDATE: Joe Gandelman: "You KNEW it HAD to happen: a site has been started to formally start a deathwatch for Pajamas Media.... Why did you KNOW it had to happen?"
November 22, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
I heard from an inside source that tomorrow the name will be "PB&J Media"
Many of us are in the same corner
Well that was fun. Mean. But fun.
Oh wow your title is brilliant!!!
What will those jealous outsiders do next?
Wow, that last comment was Craptacular in its horrible spelling. Start again:
Death, the post was damning with its links. Laurence Simon is really down on the concept at the moment. Yikes! I'm going to keep watching his site because he is hinting that he is about to take some unreasonable action. We can only hope!
"It's mean, but not unearned."
Like the death penalty. Not that the death penalty can't be fun.
Whatsapundit: You ought to take into account the links I'm losing from the insiders! Do you think I gain or lose in traffic by talking about them? The only reason I'm so conspicuous talking about how terrible the Pajamas project is is because so many others are refraining from talking about it, because they don't want big guys to link-starve them.
You can click on my Site Meter and see all my statistics, by the way.
Whatsapundit: "I just don't understand the food-fight atmosphere."
It's a little thing we call blogging. I'll be the last holdout keeping that spirit alive, if necessary.
"The only reason I'm so conspicuous talking about how terrible the Pajamas project is is because so many others are refraining from talking about it, because they don't want big guys to link-starve them."
Oh! Now I get it; you're speaking truth to power. Kudos.
WhatsAPundit: "I just don't understand the food-fight atmosphere." Were you around for Rathergate? A blog swarm is the norm for a media screwup. This one has so many angles and so much material. What is notable is how little of a swarm there is!
Many are refraining from speaking, I'm guessing, out of fear of losing links. I chose not to, mostly because I had already posted about Pajamas last summer and it was thus one of my topics. It's one of the things I've kept a Google Alert for, for a long time.
In fact, I've pulled my punches. If I watched to do a full-out attack, it would be much stronger. I like a lot of the bloggers in the group and have benefited from their links in the past.
Anyway, I have no alternate program or financial interest here. My interest is in preserving and extending the great and beautiful phenomenon of independent blogging.
Notice the "New Coke" ad in the lower right sidebar.
Rich.
How about a contest: Guess when OSM has its first paid ad
Protein Wisdom: "can you stop it with the brave, "speaking Truth to POWER" schtick?"
No. I believe in decentralized, independent blogging. Too many times have I told the story of Roger L. Simon hanging up on me, so I won't repeat it, but let it be know that he hung up on me because I expressed, with fervor, the belief in the importance of the independent blogger. You can't handle this truth, Jeff, because you ... I won't say it. I will pull this punch. But, think hard, Jeff. It hurts, doesn't it?
Jeff: I think you've lost independence by connecting yourself to them they way you have. You now have a shared interest, and you're protecting them and sparing them mockery, which they obviously deserve, and which I think you'd admit if you weren't limited by self-interest. The only reason I stand out in the talk about Pajamas is because others are holding back.
The big master blog links only to the bloggers who signed on. In the old system, the one I support, people linked based on what was good. It was a decentralized, self-organizing system, and it is brilliant and beautiful. Blogging is about freedom of expression and the free flow of expression. Pajamas does not reflect those most basic values. Roger L. Simon, in his phone call to me, admitted that the project was all about making money. His point to me was that I should take it or leave it but certainly not talk about it. But I chose to talk about it, and it's certainly not because I see personal advantage in it.
Whatsapundit: First, I want bloggers to make money from their writing. I have BlogAds, and I rejected the Pajamas offer primarily because the dollar among was pathetically low for what they are asking. I'm amazed that other people thought it was a good idea to yoke themselves to an unknown entity for 18 months for so little. I want a flexible system for making money that the blogger controls -- basically, BlogAds.
Second, I agree with you that Pajamas will fail in its grand scheme. I object to what it hopes to do, but I'm not actually afraid that it will happen. Still, it deserves mockery. We mock everything else as we see fit. It's a big juicy target for mockery, and it irks me to see bloggers laying off -- out of disgusting deference to power.
Oh, by the way, have you member bloggers gotten the money yet? I don't see the ads on Jeff's site, so I'm guessing the money has not gone out. Why don't you blog about that, Jeff? Because you're yoked to their project.
It can't just be that it's boring? Bloggers aren't talking about OSM because they fear the boot of Roger L. Simon? Really?
If you want to talk about creepy conflicts of interest, how about BlogAds bloggers worrying whether their sweet, sweet ad revenue might dry up if the upstarts get any traction? Is that any less likely than OSM bloggers forming an OSM ghetto?
As for defending the bloggy tradition: I know that what I've always liked best about blogging was the endless carping on ad revenue. What could be bloggier?
Jeff:
The humor you direct at them is gentle -- gentle enough to function as PR.
They deserved a strong reaction at the time of launching because they asked for it with a conspicuous launch. We HAD to say is that all? They teased us for months with the promise that they'd have something really new and special, and it's just a completely dull page.
Memeorandum is a much more effective portal.
Why aren't any ads running yet? Isn't payment contingent on the ads going up?
Well, that proves it, doesn't it? If Jeff wants to demonstrate that his content isn't subject to Roger L. Simon's veto, he has to post some mockery of which Ann Althouse aproves. It's the only way to show his independence. And there had better be some blood and pus, buster.
Jeff: You're way overstating what I've said about you and then disagreeing with that. I didn't ascribe those motivations to you. I think it's legitimate for you to want to make money from your writing. I don't think PJM is going to work to get the money to the writers, though, unfortunately. But I can understand why you want to feel hopeful about that.
You also overstate my feelings about PJM. I'm not obsessed with them. I find the site mainly boring. Just a big disappointment. I'm tired of talking about. After the first two days, I think, I stopped doing posts that actually described the content and disparaged it. If I cared more, I would have continued with that sort of thing. Actually, people telling me to stop blogging about them has caused me to blog more -- that and Roger L. Simon taking it upon himself to call me on the telephone, act like a bully, and then hang up on me.
Ann, I'd be interested in reading a reply from you to Bill's comment.
Stephen: Bill didn't ask a question. He made his statement. If I were to comment on it, I could only repeat things I've already said: I'm not obsessed. I'm trying to stop talking about the subject, which I'm very tired of. And I really do worry about the independence of bloggers as they tie themselves to each other in financial arrangments. You already know that. I see that Bill disagrees.
Dave: "so many others are refraining" doesn't mean that everyone who isn't blogging about it is doing it for that reason. I'm sure it's not a natural topic for most bloggers. But I would think that the bloggers who made fun of Huffington Post, for example, would find it in their normal realm of topics. I think we'd be should be hearing from more bloggers -- that's all I'm saying. Don't take it personally.
Tex: Did you get that link right?
Post a Comment