This is the daily face Los Angeles bloggers present to the world, and it is decidedly different from the image forged by decades of television, movie, newspaper, magazine and literary portrayals of the SoCal lifestyle. In this new etherworld, Hollywood, flowering bougainvillea and beaches are augmented by internal landscapes, closely observed neighborhoods, musings on politics or relationships and behind-the-scenes looks at myriad elements of local life.The article ends with a list of what the paper considers "the jewels among Los Angeles' thousands of blogs," and lawprof Stephen Bainbridge gets a nod in the political category, which is, following the theme of the article, kept very small.
Seipp complains that the article mentions "neither the much-hyped L.A.-based commercial blogging enterprises that began this year (the Huffington Post and Pajamas Media, of which I'm a member), nor any of the major L.A. blogs (Kausfiles, the Volokh Conspiracy, Little Green Footballs, et al) except L.A. Observed and Defamer, and then only in passing." Seipp portrays the article as clueless and lazy. What? Because it didn't write about the big blogs that anyone can easily see? Because tiny blogs are so five years ago?
It seems to me that it's much harder to find tiny blogs to recommend. And the most beautiful thing about the blogosphere has always been the continual budding of new blogs, written by persons with a new way to look at things. Those of us with a little or a lot more traffic should rejoice when a major newspaper finds a way to talk about them. The notion that the biggest blogs must be acknowledged first -- where does that come from? It makes no sense to me.
Posts
21 comments:
We have a tiny blog! And, we'd love to be mentioned in a newspaper. But, then again, maybe some blogs are small for a reason...
Is a restaurant critic supposed to mention McDonald's every time he or she writes about area restaurants?
When do Little Green Footballs or Volokh ever write about Los Angeles? Maybe that's why they weren't included.
As an aside, I went over to read Volokh and there was that f**king ugly bathrobe icon, floating in the corner, reminding me that even a blog like Volokh gave into that stupid idea. How off-putting.
I've been a regular (and frequent) reader of Siepp's for a long time and enjoy her blog a lot, as well as her work elsewhere. But I too think she's sort of missing the point here. And maybe being just a bit disingenuous here and there.
This snippet is the one that jumped out at me: tiny, diary-style L.A. blogs, the kind that defined the medium about five years ago.
So, there's only one way to "define the medium" at a time? And the diary type is just so yesterday?
What's interesting is that if you are to believe Siepp's friend, Luke Ford (whose stuff I also get a kick out of), Siepp's daughter started her blog before her mother did, according to this Ford entry from July 2005. I've read her daughter's blog
her daughter's blog and have often been impressed.
But doesn't it ... well ... read like a diary? I mean, I think that's just fine--but Siepp thinks that's "so five years ago"? I say it's perfectly appropriate for the particular person it expresses. And that judgment extends to other diary-like blogs. Small or otherwise. (Note that Sky Watching My World actually has a good readership.)
Now to be fair, I'll note that on Cathy's website, she says that basic journalism means the reporter of the LA article should have sketched in the bigger picture for readers and noted larger blogs that detail personal life.
(I actually had pasted in the relevant 'grafs here--but then remembered that she's part of PJM and therefore that I would be violating its personalized fair use policy, therefore putting myself in Lord-knows-what jeopardy.)
I can see her point, but I still think she's been awfully off-handed and dismissive.
And not just because I'm a small-blogger myself, with entries that are probably "so-five-years-ago" themselves.
Small blogs are obsolete. Finding your own audience is subversive and leads to destructive competition.
From now on, you have to join the union if you want to survive. Go along to get along, or the boys from the United Pajama Workers will bust your stinking scab head for you.
Look for...the bathrobe label...
as an aficionado of small blogs, I don't see what's so stinkin' great about the big ones. seriously, I have the same ability as the Instapundit to link to stuff, with 1/3,000 the audience. I pimp my favorite traffic-less blogs all the time, even here in the comments. not because they need my endorsement, but because they're good.
like the Althouse-in-training American Princess. she's been Instalanched and got the occasional MMalanche, but doesn't seem to retain the audience, regardless of how fine the content. doesn't make sense to me.
here's something else: your blog starts with an A. I know it sounds a little silly, but as I was trying to get a handle on this blogoshere back in 2004, I started going down lists. guess how I found Althouse?
now, I kept (and keep) coming back because of the darn fine blog-product. it actually concerns me little what the blog traffic stats are, other than I wish that more people read the good stuff.
Aaron said: "Likening Littlegreenfootballs brand awareness to that of McDonalds is a reach to say the least."
You are distorting my point and then attacking your own distortion. That occasionally works in political campaigns. It seldom works in business.
Aaron: "I think that some free publicity even if it may be ginned up over a fake controversy is a time honored marketing scheme."
It was a time-honored marketing scheme in the days of P.T. Barnum, maybe. Again you are thinking like a political operative, not like a businessperson. Today most businesses executives don't like fake controversies. (Movies and cola wars are among the few exceptions.)
Aaron: "Has anyone been going to OSM's blogjams? I enjoy them."
No, I prefer fruit jams.
Seeing as I didn't see the article she was responding to (I suppose I ought to go look it up, huh) I couldn't say if her criticisms were off-base or not. Certainly there's nothing wrong with focusing on a certain kind of blog that features local color but it does seem strange if the writer didn't do anything to place those lovely little gems within the context of the larger picture.
Can you imagine a story about colorful little botiques that didn't mention the department store in contrast?
Ah... that's why I didn't read the article... it requires registration.
Aaron,
You wrote: "I read your comment as saying that it is unfair to criticize the LA Times for not mentioning a site like LGF because it is a well known brand like McDonalds."
Actually, my point was that you don't have to mention an entity simply because it has a lot of TRAFFIC. Obviously I failed to make myself clear. Like most executives, I tend to take shortcuts when I communicate because time is money. Sorry for the confusion.
I spent the first years of my career as a writer at a daily newspaper. I could write a story about freight forwarders without mentioning the biggest freight companies in the field. I could write a story about celery farming without mentioning the biggest farmers. (A journalist picks the quotes that are most interesting or newsworthy to him, not the quotes from executives at the biggest operations).
In the case of the L.A. Times story about blogs, the selection is a judgment call. The writer of the piece gets to make that call. A blogger can disagree with the choice. But I don't thing any decision about "the jewels among Los Angeles' thousands of blogs" should hinge on the size of the blogs. In the movie business, the blockbusters often don't get the Academy Awards.
You wrote (in an earlier comment): "Re: OSM - I think that some free publicity even if it may be ginned up over a fake controversy is a time honored marketing scheme."
That is dangerous from a business point of view. As I understand it, the goal of OSM/PJM bloggers is to create an honest, alternative source of news, opinion, and other information. They can't do this if they fake stuff. If they start faking stuff, they should write "fiction" at the top of their blogs.
You wrote: "...I could swear media folks sometimes find heat as useful as light."
This used to be the trait of tabloids, not the other papers. Unfortunately the competitive environment has prompted all newsmen to think like tabloid reporters. As a former journalist with an excellent reputation in the field, I can't begin to express how annoyed I am with the practices of many journalists today.
One problem is that most journalists are surface thinkers. Their knowledge is a mile wide and 1/32 of an inch deep. That is why bloggers with specialized expertise are essential.
Another problem is that journalists always write the easiest story. That is human nature when you have to crank out copy every day. It is easier to write "Five soldiers died in Iraq today" than it is to write about more complex war topics.
Your wrote: "For an opinion writer making some upset is almost a necessity. It means your opinion matters."
That's fine if you want to become other tabloid hack. Personally I think an opinion matters when the writer has taken time to become an expert in a subject area. The rest is just noise. Sure loud noise can get attention. If that is all a writer wants, he can buy a drum and bang on it in front of a subway station.
aaron: Susan Estrich took Michael Kinsley to task for the lack of female voices on the editorial page, not Michael Crowley. He came later.
There may be something to be said for Seipp's article creating a little controversy and thereby garnering a little free publicity for the Pajamas Media blogs she mentions in her article, but, as one who has appreciated her blog and work in the past, I'd hate to think she has taken on the job of "chief tout for PJM."
Having actually read the Times article, I fail to understand why Siepp and others feel that not mentioning PJM, Arianna, LGF and Volokh revealed some ulterior motive. None of those sites are Los Angeles-centric in outlook or commentary and that was what the story was about. It was not about the rise of corporate blog empires on the left or right. It was not about how easy it is to inflame passions of rabid partisans using nothing more than the tried-and-true "cut-and-paste." Most of the Volokh Conspirators live far away from Los Angeles.
"I'd hate to think she has taken on the job of "chief tout for PJM.""
See, that's one of the problems with Pajamas. Even if the person isn't promoting her business venture, you have to wonder if she is. Frankly, Pajamas has gotten almost no MSM press coverage. There's virtually nothing that isn't about the initial roll out and that emphasizes the screw up with the name "Open Source." I ran "Pajamas Media" through NEXIS yesterday and saw that. But really, why would you expect MSM to be interested in promoting them? Their self-promotion is that they are going to beat MSM at its own game. How is that going to get positive MSM coverage? Maybe Siepp is trying to make up for that, but an article that has to concede her own involvement with the venture just isn't going to interest ordinary people, I would think.
"See, that's one of the problems with Pajamas. Even if the person isn't promoting her business venture, you have to wonder if she is."
Exactly. Inevitable under the circumstances, I think. All of them have that problem now, not just Instapundit, whose blind links many of us never gave a second thought to before now cause us to pause (as mentioned here and elsewhere).
Aaron enjoys their "blogjams." Good for him. But most of have been creating our own "blogjams" without any help by reading various independent voices we find interesting (and rational), joining the fray in the comments on this or that blog. The beauty of that is that, as no two people are alike, probably no two sets of individually created "blogjams" on a subject are identical. The ultimate "conversation" is much richer because of the infinite variety of sources brought to the table.
"But most of have been creating our own "blogjams" without any help by reading various independent voices we find interesting (and rational), joining the fray in the comments on this or that blog. The beauty of that is that, as no two people are alike, probably no two sets of individually created "blogjams" on a subject are identical. The ultimate "conversation" is much richer because of the infinite variety of sources brought to the table."
Good point. I should make it my new subtitle: A blogjam at every post.
Aaron: "Prof A's critiques of OSM could be just as self-serving as Siepp's of the LA Times. "
Uh, yeah, how would that work exactly, considering that I was a major recipient of Instapundit links for a long time? My criticisms are pretty damned obviously against self-interest. Give me some %#@ing credit.
"Prof A is sometimes critiquing OSM for being a business failure and sometimes it seems for trying to be a business at all."
What a ridiculous charge! I have never been anti-business. I'm against poorly designed business, poorly run busines, and business structured in a destructive way. I've been perfectly clear about this. These strained efforts to make me seem irrational or incoherent make you look bad not me.
Aaron, are you in the fertilizer business?
Aaron: "Umm Ann - in the quote from my comment I went on to say that..."
Ummmmm.... Aaron... I never read crap that begins with "Umm," but even when you didn't begin with "Umm," it was just too damned long to read the whole thing. You work in film? Films are too %&*&ing long too.
But I see you think solo business is a "good fit" for me. I think a lot of us here can think of a few "good fits" for you.
He's still calling it OSM.
Anyway, why did this thread turn out to be so much about "OSM"?
Aaron: What pissed me off was that you insulted me and the way you insulted me -- in my own place. What do you expect -- a warm welcome when you trudge into someone else's place and start making negative assumptions about the hostess and lengthily and rudely stating your opinion over and over? You can say what you like on your own blog. Why are you hanging around here being unpleasnt? You keep recommenting as if somehow we're going to start responding in a positive way, when you're still doing the same thing. Get a clue.
Aaron: "Maybe I am presumptuous for coming to the conclusions..."
Aaron again: "I think you were offended at my presumption..."
There is the problem, Aaron. You presumed to know Ann's thinking. You presumed I was talking about brand awareness rather than traffic when I mentioned McDonald's. That was what I meant earlier when I said, "You are distorting my point and then attacking your own distortion."
A basic fact of life: Erroneous assumptions lead to bad decisions. Ask George Bush. He recently learned that lesson the hard way.
Post a Comment