Some quick thoughts: the two concerns of the piece are writing and no one reading, and blogging "addiction." If you write for Blogcritics you get 10-15K readers per day seeing what you have to say, so that kind of takes care of the "no one reading" issue. Since any reasonably proficient blogger can join Blogcritics, the author should have mentioned this option as a means to supplement and increase one's own site traffic.

Re addiction: when I first started blogging over 2 years ago I felt a certain compulsion to address every issue, to maintain every conversation, to let no crumb go unexamined, but I got over that and placed limits on my efforts.

Since I have always blogged as a "professional," ie seen it as a supplement and marketing tool for my writing career, that focus has helped me to maintain some semblance of a big picture context and keep blogging's role in perspective.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I also see nothign wrong with treating a blog like a personal journal and repository of random thoughts, whims, dreams and noodling, even if no one reads it but the writer. People have been keeping journals for millennia without regard to "readership" - at least blogs present the possibility of others reading our output.

I post to my blog 8 times a day, 56 times a week.

Why aren't I in the least bit concerned about all the motivations, etc.?

What, me worry?

Style me

Alfred E. Newman

Yes, Lono. Blogging is largely futile. I figured that out about six weeks after I started reading blogs. So, why do I bother? To get information out, mainly. Information that many people who read blogs are not aware of. (This is particularly true in regard to civil rights issues, at my little blog, Silver Rights.) However, I have no illusions. The best sources of information (not opinion, usually completely uninformed, which the blogosphere largely consists of) are still books, periodicals and, when one can get them, primary sources.

The blogosphere is becoming more and more a tool of propaganda -- with an emphasis on Right Wing propaganda. Furthermore, lying, cheating and stealing are pretty much the norm here. The stupid and unethical dominate Bloggersville, and that is bound to be the result.

Writers and the blogosphere? Most 'writers' in the blogosphere can't write. Not even a little bit. Even worse, most 'thinkers' in the blogosphere can't think. That is why we have people like Glen Reynolds and the ingrates at Little Green Footballs passing as leaders.

Summer, for me, means spending more time around real writers. Though we are far from perfect, the interaction reminds me of why I decided to become a writer. There is a dedication to craft and truth one will find hardly a hint of in the blogosphere. I am resigned to the blogosphere remaining the mess it is. I just hope it does not overly influence other kinds of writing, including news and literary fiction.

I blog mainly because I like to write about cool rock and roll record labels, radio shows etc. that I listen to but that don't seem to be too popular or are perhaps so low key that not many people know about them. It's fun, it's addictive and I have started to get a bunch of people (a couple of hundred a day) reading it. Most comment to me that they had never heard of the label/band/radio show that I wrote about but are now big fans. It's a creative outlet for me and the 2 other writers to the blog. It allows me to fulfill a desire that I have had for years to write about music. It is merely what you make of it. It is a great creative outlet for many who have none. That in itself is revolutionary.

A few thoughts:

Our blog work has the shelf-life of warm buttermilk left on a sidewalk in August.

Democratization of expression only means a greater volume added to Sturgeon's Law, ie. "90% of everything is crap."

Thanks to the web, Crap now travels at the speed of light, and one can access disinformation and misinformation at one's fingertips.

Most blogs are no more than somebody pissing grafitti onto the walls of an empty alley in the backstreets just off the information highway.

Aphorisms applicable to Blogging:

"Masturbation: Sex with someone I love." -- Woody Allen

"I have nothing to say and I'm saying it." -- John Cage

"You have the right to an informed opinion." -- Shark

"Shutup!" -- Jim Morrison

Glad to see I stirred up some passion. I love blogging, and think it is an amazing device. I get to hone my creative writing skills, and bitch about stupid stuff that cheeses me off. Don't think I was calling y'all losers... I just wanted to inspire some dialogue.

take care,
Lono

Blogging isn't futile, no, not for everybody. For some (like those described in this article) it might be who become obsessed with it and especially if they aren't making any $money$ from it. Just like the chatrooms or online gaming or any other online non-business activity it could be detrimental.

Any activity in excess is not good and of course includes blogging.

But blogging can be a useful, perhaps even therapeutic, for those who keep their perspective.

Me? I primarily blog for business.

I'm looking at and using blogs almost entirely from and for a business angle which I know goes against the grain of many diehard personal bloggers. But for those who want to be in the dear diary crowd with their friends, hey, more power to them!

I think that's great to write in a journal, but I believe and have already witnessed that there is clearly a serious, business-related use for blogging.

So I'm with Eric in the sense that I do things from a professional standpoint and while sometimes I write some personal entries, and I admit that I do not go too much out of the way to polish most of this (Mac Diva, maybe some of the "bad writing" you are seeing is because many treat blogs like what most of them really are: rough draft output).

In fact, most of my blogging is done to be supplemental to our business and web properties and/or to sharpen the stone.

Writing is like any other skill, generally speaking, the more one does it, the better one should get.

I did notice recently that my article output and messageboard posting has gone down since I became a regular blogger. The former I am going to work on changing but the latter I do not miss either personally or professionally.

Also, this Times article seems to focus way too much on individual blogger obsession and readership rather than writer self-discovery and the use of blogging as a business communication tool (either B2B or business to clients). There is where I see the value in blogging, not to mention the promotion of the underlying syndication aspect, which helps to separate the wheat from the chaff at websites.

Another reporter who just doesn't seem to get the bigger picture, unfortunately. You can find troubled users in every online community: gaming, chatrooms, messageboards, etc.

OK, I'm new to your world here and don't have the technical know-how or desire to start my own "blog," so perhaps I can lend some perspective from the outside. Hell, I'm not even fully sure what a "blog" is yet. I found this site on a Google search about some random topic (American Idol, actually -- talk about the ridiculous).

I don't know where Eric gets his thousands of readers figure, but it really seems to me that there are about 10-15 people who actually post and make comments on this site. I agree that most people don't talk WITH each other or engage what others say, but prefer monologues. Mac Diva is a perfect example of someone like this, who doesn't even seem to read what you write before "writing" her own material. I think she'd classify that as a "thinking" failure, not one of writing. I do think that thinking and writing are largely related skills, and only those who are poor at both imagine that there's some form of technique that can elevate pedestrian or bizarre analysis into trenchant prose. I give you our wonderful MacDiva, for example. Her writing style isn't particularly skilled nor is it markedly poor. Yet her bizarre comments and lack of analytical ability make her a bad writer, despite whatever training she has had. That's just my opinion.

Political blogs amuse me because with a few key exceptions of "insiders" who blog, most bloggers seem to fail to realize there's no real purpose to their work. A lot of them try to emulate Drudge or The Note or some of the other big sites that people in politics actually do frequent, but rarely have anything interesting besides links to mainstream news people read anyway or links to other, equally fringe blogger "friends." There's a certain delusion of grandeur in these political sites, as if people in power will read these scintillating "exposes" of Bush's foreign policy, the "real" reason for high oil prices, or any other garden variety topic that invites shallow analysis. I think MacDiva makes one true and revealing point, though: that these people mainly write about politics to get informed and do the research necessary to pretend they are doing actual journalism while convincing themselves of their beliefs. Often, the key problem is that they fail to make compelling connections, don't understand the use of evidence, or simply lack any ability or insight into news, events, and people. Even worse, I think a lot of blogs I've seen are just plain eccentric and inaccurate in their interepretation and feed into people's prejudices and narrow views, e.g., "Nicholas Berg video makes me so mad! We should have finished them all off and liberal critics of Bush should all feel shame for opposing strong leadership in dangerous times, blah blah," etc.

I DON'T think anyone ever convinces anyone else of an argument or point of view on these god-forsaken sites. So in that respect, perhaps it's true that blogging doesn't really "democratize" public debate about politics or culture except about the most trivial matters. It's not dialogue, really. For the most part, it is monologue. I mean MAYBE I can convince someone that Fantasia's better than LaToya, but even that's unlikely since it appears that so many people are invested in their pseudo-wonk/pundit "blogger" persona. The best any of you bloggers can hope for is that someone who ALREADY agrees with your view appreciates you for saying what was on their mind or articulating it better than they have themselves.

"Fantasia in 5!" My favorite comment yet, by the way, for whoever wrote that :)

I think a good way to define blogging from what little I admittedly know of it would be the manufacture and emulation of an authoritative, monologic voice on general issues by people without any particular expertise or compelling reason to comment upon them. That is, no reason to comment save their own desire to hear (read) themselves speak (write) and that stated self-importance they associate with writing for whatever reason. There's certainly an irony in that self-important gesture that I don't think most writers are immediately aware of. And of course, I've written my usual longer comment and now welcome your accusations of hypocrisy.

Bottom line is: I really don't imagine that anyone actually reads this site. That's probably why I feel comfortable commenting on the few things I know something about or care to discuss with you folks. I really wouldn't want to get into a political discussion since I would expect a fringe quality to the discussion. I enjoy writing, but I don't think these comments really influence anyone or achieve a "readership" of any sort beyond the 10-15 aforementioned.

I write mostly as an anal expulsive act that helps me digest pop culture and other things that shouldn't be in my system anyway.

"Best quote ever ...." Enjoy that, Comic Book Man. "Oh that's rich ... you mocking ME."

That is all.

Bob A. Booey has spoken.....

After reading that comment I feel as if I've been in the easy chair for six straight hours suffering through Ben-Hur....and there wasn't even a chariot race!

I hope someday soon to have a blog, although time right now is keeping me from it. I want mine to be done right, and I'm somewhat of a perfectionist when it comes to websites, it will take time. Hopefully soon though.

As to whether blogging is futile, that depends on what you want to get out of it. I saw a report on CNN (tv, so i don't have a link), that profiled those who bought liberal political books and those who bought conservative political books. Upwards of 90% of the purchasers were of the same affiliation. (liberals buy liberal books, conservatives buy conservative books). So I'm not sure even writing a book will change people's minds. It will probably just reinforce it, and give them new insight and a slightly different perspective towards the same view.

I think if people's minds were to be changed after reading a few paragraphs on a blog, then what a mess this world would be. One day we would have 98% support for Bush, someone would type a few paragraphs, then the next day there would be 98% support for Kerry. Imagine the chaos.

I do click on the bloggers links at this site and visit other blogs. I read more of the liberal ones than the conservative ones, but that's my preference. I know conservative ones are full of BS anyway. :-)

Blogging does seem to generate some sort of online community sense, which has replaced message boards, where I originally come from.

I hope my blog allows friends (whether online or in the RW) to come and have a place to discuss that which we agree on, and to debate that which we disagree on. If it comes down to the fact that nobody but myself goes to my blog, that is fine too, as it will also be an online journal to place my thoughts, like a diary or scrapbook. And in that sense, my blog will be successful and not futile, no matter how many people visit it.

On a second reading of the NYT article (which I will blog), I am even more impressed with the good job of addressing the pitfalls the reporter did. People who are thinking about blogging or who are in burden mode with their blogging really need to read a piece like this. I think no one should feel like they have to blog, which both people in the article and some bloggers I know do. It becomes an obligation. They feel like they are skipping out on what is expected of them if they don't do it. It is okay not to blog. That is the advice I give people who email me about whether they should start blogs now. Unless the person has some special insight into some field, the answer is no.

Furthermore, if your blogging consists totally of reprinting material the news services have done a fine job of disseminating already, why bother? (See any RJ Elliott entry for an example.) Who do you think you're foolin,' Magpie? I suspect your deception is of yourself.

If you are neglecting your job, your significant other or your child to blog, I think you should have stopped blogging yesterday. It is not nearly as important as any of those.

I agree with whoever mentioned ego. Largely, the blogosphere has become a place for less than mediocre thinkers and writers to convince themselves they are hot stuff. They aren't. Meanwhile, the real hot stuff thinkers and writers hardly know the blogosphere exists. There are going to be some upset bloggers if more of them figure that out.

And, it is getting worse. I checked up on the 'book deals' of some bloggers, including one who is a Blogcritic. They are what the law calls adhesion contracts. That means all the bargaining power is on one side of the relationship. The 'writers' will end up owing the publishers for several thousand poorly printed books which will never sell. Because, getting back around to my original post, the quality of the thinking and writing just isn't sufficient. Before falling into holes like this, people need to consider just what it is they are doing in the blogosphere. Usually, it is not professional quality writing.

The Blogosphere isn't really as new and revolutionary as some people seem to think it is.

All it really is could be described as a combination of old-fashioned home page and a sort of inside-out Usenet (mostly alt.flame)

Some journalists love blogs, as they see them as wonderful story sources (but they don't always give the blogger credit), and others are scared to death of them, as they feel bloggers could replace journalists.

I use my blog and blogging in general for three reasons:

(1) I make money from it. Blogging has done wonders for bringing me more traffic, translating into more sales.

(2) It allows me to inform customers and potential customers, as well as entertain them, all while giving them insight into myself.

(3) It allows me to shape the news, and sometimes get free advertising (publicity).

Blogging is the greatest form of public relations there is, because it allows you to be the media, as well as give the media a story without even picking up the phone. Tell them about your blog and they will tune in. Smaller local newspapers are also usually more than happy to syndicate your editorial content if they have room.

Blogging can also be directly profitable. Take Jason Denton over at Gawker for example. He's banking on blogs, as are quite a few others. A friend of mine and I are even working on a Web magazine of our own, which we will publish using blog software.

Is blogging futile? Perhaps. But eventually everyone will be assimilated, so it really isn't an issue for me as to whether it is futile or not.

I blog because I want to, I find it relaxing and it amuses me.

I don't give a fuck what other people think. If you aren't doing it for you then you aren't doing it for the right reasons.

I repeat, fuck what other people think.

Bob A. Booey,

1) I love you, man.

2) You've got MacD's number. (But I am curious: how many slaves do you currently own?)

3) You're brilliant, but one word, babe: BREVITY. The one thing bloggers and their readers have in common is a case of terminal ADD. Well, that and overactive bladders. (see comment #5 + Hitchcock's Rule: a film should be no longer than the holding capacity of the average bladder. ~*Ben Hur, anyone???)

*thanks, Chris!

4) "Fantasia in 5!" was mine. BTW: I saw the last 10 min. of the final (my 1st and hopefully last encounter with the winner) and was not impressed. But then again, I can hear equal talent in any one of about 50 local black churches in my area. Fffft. Just what we need: another 'interpreter' of tired, has-been soul power ballads. I think the wind beneath America's wings is either a load of hot air or a big overmarketed fart. (PS: that runner up gal: boy, did she have some thighs or what~!)

That is all,

Shark (aka "BC's Simon")

Does anyone not know that 90% (or 80, or 70 or something similar) of everything is crap, hence a similar percentage in blogs. what the hell do you expect? I certainly think the % of quality material here is higher, near the top, and I have seen thousands of blogs.

Bob, since you admit to being new and ignorant about blogs, I will simply provide you with stats: see the little Site Meter box at the bottom left of each page? Click on it - our current daily average of unique readers is 11,973, and this includes weekends when traffic is down. So your assumption about numbers reading is only off by three digits.

Now as to writers on the site, there are 458 currently registered, of whom 130 have contributed in the last 30 days (see left sidebar on front page: Your Blogcritics), so you're a bit off there too.

Only a tiny % of people ever comment on any given site, and yet we still average hundreds of comments per day.

This is all pretty obvious stuff, but that's okay, you're new.

Oh, and one more thing, many of the reviews here are shared with the Advance Internet sites and are seen by additional hundreds of thousands of people per week.

I'd say in the case of William Hung the percentage is closer to 99.9% of everything he has produced to date has been crap, Eric, but your point is well taken.

;)

Dear Bob A. Booey:

First off let me say that I was impressed with your intelligent post:

I respect your cynicism and when you say there is a "certain delusion of grandeur" amongst bloggers who succumb to their "desire to hear (read) themselves speak (write) and that stated self-importance they associate with writing for whatever reason".

Quite frankly, when you said that you hit a sore spot, and a bone of contention if you will, that I have personally struggled with because I find myself asking the same questions.

However I will say this, I have actually been contacted by members of the mainstream media that actually read my articles and have even contributed to its content. Times like that remind myself that I am not necessarily 'talking to myself' and there is in fact real "dialogue".

When I look at blogs like Blackfive that have actually made a difference in society, I have to respectfully disagree with your assumption that our humble blogs cannot make a small difference.

I sincerely thank you for your post because you have forced me to seriously re-evaluate why I blog, and now more than ever I know why that I do.

I hope that you will come back and read this post because I wholeheartedly encourage you to start your own blog. The blogosphere could use more intelligent, articulate people like you that have something of value to give to the community.

Thanks for the nice words, BB. I'm not sure they're deserved.

I don't think I should be commended for being cynical, but I'm glad my comments made you think about your purpose and renewed your passion for blogging. I think maybe that's one reason for anyone to write, whether it's on a website or in a journal locked in your desk drawer: to overcome that cynicism. I'll plagiarize from the literary critic Wayne Booth (a man far, far smarter than I), who repudiated the notion a "nihilistic writer" as a contradiction in terms. Writing implies a desire to communicate and influence others no matter how difficult that gesture is, an affirmation of hope no matter the futility of that gesture. Booth also says that the only consistent gesture of the true nihilist would be suicide; that writing is in fact an affirmation of life and order. I don't know if I'd put silly blogs about pop culture (the only thing I'm equipped to comment upon with my limited intelligence) in that elevated category, but perhaps you find higher meaning in your online writing than I do mine. I make a few jokes, make a few connections, I offend a few people -- it is what it is.

I gave a cursory glance to that Blackfive site just now and I don't really see how it betters humanity -- it just seems like another right-wing rant to me.

Olsen: get me published. I'm briliant :)

Sharky poo: Perhaps I was a bit harsh on you if you were the "Fantasia in 5!" fellow. I'm a bit thrown by the slaves comment; I have no idea what that implies or what it even means. None of you should assume that I agree with your politics simply because I think MacDiva is a poor writer and thinker -- I'm just a smarter leftie than she is. I might actually agree with her on some issues (like the Cosby business), even if I don't care for her argumentation.
I love you too, though, Sharky dear.

Perhaps brevity would have led you to edit this unfortunate sentence:
"I think the wind beneath America's wings is either a load of hot air or a big overmarketed fart." I'll write an equally ham-handed sentence of my own so we're simpatico: I look at writing like lovemaking ... long, boring, painful, and spastic, where the payoff gets almost completely lost in the misdirected thrusts and clumsy groping.

Nah, who am I kidding? My writing is positively multi-orgasmic. And I'm almost as good a lay if you can get me to shut up for a second :) Am I right ladies? Know what I'm sayin? Ya hear me?

Mudd: by the way, you don't shape the news. Go back and read what I wrote about "delusions of grandeur" vis a vis people in power.

Alright, that is all.

Oh, and I seriously don't know how to start a blog. I doubt I'd want to because I probably wouldn't have the time to do actual research and write structured pieces. I'm too ADD, as Sharky poo points out. Plus, my take on "serious issues" would be too detailed, boring, and wonky for casual Internet readers to enjoy. Whoever said the Ben Hur 6-hour chariot race thing would be right on if they'd read any of my academic work.

I'll try my best to write amusing, inane anal expulsive comments on here for the time being, though.

Bob A. Booey:

Respectfully, in some ways you've made my point.

As much as I may disagree with you (and agree with you) - I'm lovin it... and that is precisely the type of intelligent interaction the blogosphere needs.

Not propaganda by prejudiced, narrow-minded twits, or silly nonsensical rants by airheads with a computer. But real, intelligent dialogue about real issues.

Coincidentally I recently wrote some related posts about blogging that foresee a bright future for blogging at: BlogBloke.com.

The bottom line is none of us have the perfect blog and we all struggle to find our way. I think you have a lot to offer and encourage you to make your own blog and I promise I'll read it, OR... consider writing for one of my humble blogs. Please feel free to email me if you are at all interested.

OH MY GOD!!!!

i found bob A, booey again!!!

You never responded to my post on the american idol finale topic. You say your new to blogging?!?!?!? WELL RUN, as fast as you can bro causee it is way to apparent that this will take over your life. On this topic alone you've typed about 10,563 words. WTF!

Anyway, go check out my response to all you goofy ass american idol fans, i find it quite funny

Blogging futile?

depends what the goal of it is. i still haven't figured it out.

If its for laughs: Far from futile, i find funny shit on here all the time

If its for changing the world: VERY FUTILE, unless you actually get knowledgable people to come here, and even then....

If its for venting: not futile at all, this place is great for talking shit.

If it is to piss people off: still not futile, i do it daily here

so, figure out what goal your trying to acheive before discussing the futility of it.Just my 2 cents, take it or leave it.

sorryfor triple posting but one more thing

If the purpose of blogging is to see yourself on a post site:

JUST LOOK AT BOB A. BOOEY, he makes full use of the blog oppurtunity

GO BOB!

Booey-poo: I'm a bit thrown by the slaves comment; I have no idea what that implies or what it even means."

I refuse to explain anything, 'cause "If ya gotta ask..."

Bobby poo: "...None of you should assume that I agree with your politics simply because I think MacDiva is a poor writer and thinker..."

Booey, I know yer new around here, but if that were the case, Blogcritics' Right and Left would be havin' one big political love fest.

~ahahah

PS: And only when you're especially smart -- will I assume you agree with *my politics.


*Reactionary Liberal

Oxymoron.

oy.

Mudd: by the way, you don't shape the news. Go back and read what I wrote about "delusions of grandeur" vis a vis people in power.

Blogs quite often drive media content. For someone who knows nothing about blogging to call someone who's been featured in newspapers nationally, from Florida to California, for his blog delusional is incredibly humorous. You should be on SNL.

Perhaps since you're new to blogging, you should read some books on it to discover the effect they've had on mainstream media. Some have predicted that blogs will eventually replace newspapers, which is why many newspapers have changed their format to look quite a bit like blogs.

I also recommend reading some books on grassroots lobbying and grass tops lobbying, as blogs are wonderful grassroots tools for media relations efforts. Create more than one about the same topic, and you're sure to weave a prominent news story into creation.

When you get a blog, if you get a blog, make sure you can track your visitors so you know who's visiting, and what media organization they're with.

Cheers.

Almost forgot, here's a link to my blog. You can also access it from my website.

With the way it's set up and the way things are added, I'm guessing that Slate magazine is entirely a blog, with the ability for the viewer to add comments removed.

I'm betting that not only will newspapers become entirely blogs, but news sites as well. They'll have reporters just email their stuff in, and the page will be built around it automatically, no need to give it to a programmer, etc.

The way Blogcritics is set up, it functions very much like a message board. I'm betting it has far more adaptability though. I can only imagine that blogs are the demise of message boards. (I know a few message board sites that have 30k visitors a day. Soon these will all be pulled into blogging, or get left behind).

I read a report once, recently, that corporations are putting blogs on their intranets so people can post notices, vacation blogs, meeting blogs, etc.

Whether blogging is futile, depends on what you want to get out of it. It's definitely here to stay, it's only going to grow. I imagine half of it's promise is embedded in the front end, where the average HTML-clueless typist can see instantanenous results and the other half of it's promise lies in the back-end functionality/adaptability. It seems to allow as much flexibility as the creation of style sheets did. Just in a different way.

Mudd:

Which publications have you been printed in?

SNL sucks. I'm too funny for that lame crap.

I clicked the link on your blog and saw the title "Inside Florida Real Estate" and was too bored to even wait for the page to load. I was speaking to political bloggers or those who concern themselves with more than trivial issues like real estate. The simple reason most blogging is futile, especially in politics, is because the bloggers won't have access to the same sources and research that an ACTUAL professional journalist would. They don't have the imprimatur of the New York Times or Washington Post that brings them leads and offers them access to high-level sources.

I don't dispute that you might have some inside info on real estate due to your profession, but I don't really care and that's not making "news" in any significant sense of the word. Your comments and blog don't disprove anything I've said. I'm sure you're quite expert in your field and the latest developments in real estate.

The only possible exception to the general futility I've talked about is Drudge, who has no real background in journalism but staked his place in the Internet very early on as a resource for news geeks. But Drudge really doesn't blog -- he never comments upon the news, he just tries to "scoop" mainstream media in breaking it. Slate is most decidedly NOT a blog -- all its contributors are screened the same way conventional journalists would be and most of them ARE in fact journalists with newspaper or magazine experience and J school training or academics of some type who comment on an issue they're familiar with. The same with Salon or any of the other "respectable" E-zines. I'm not as familiar with Slate lately as BoomCrash might be, but the fact that they don't allow comments (as he says) would prove my point even more.

I do agree that blogs are good resources for grass-roots causes and activists to network and inform each other.

Corporate intra-net blogs seem to be a colossal waste of time and a drain on productivity. What the hell is a meeting blog? It's called a damn memo. Having people comment on meetings and offer pointless talk about their vacations seems like incredibly poor management to me.

Reportage is not blogging. There's a difference between news and commentary. There's also a marked difference between editorial commentary and internet commentary (the definition of blogging), not just in the process of review and editing but also in the type of analysis, conclusions, content accountability and writing at work.

I am HTML-clueless.

That is all.

Bob, check out my press room, which includes some media I've coordinated and/or been featured in, but not all. Here's the link:

www.blognewswire.net/news.html

I'm also a published poet and columnist and am no stranger as a guest on various radio shows broadcast from Clear Channel and other stations. Of course, if you really knew me, you would have known that already.

Also, read my blog's post on Bill Gates telling businesses that blogs are good for business and how Microsoft workers (including the great Scoble, who has been a proponent of blogs for quite some time) use their blogs to get word out to the public without using the media.

If blogs were useless, Nick Denton wouldn't waste his time building a publishing empire out of them, would he? He downplays profits, but if you run the numbers he's taking in anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 a month, at least. Also, you may have noticed that Nick Denton's primary publication, Gawker, used to have a writer he paid $1,000 a month to, who has since been hired by a major New York publication as a full-time staffer. She also created a blog for them. Find out more at The Blog Herald.

Blogs are a new form of grassroots communication. The beauty is you can now use grassroots techniques to conduct media relations, advertising, Internet campaigning, and publishing, be it a magazine or newspaper.

You can say that they aren't news or a form of journalism, and I'm sure hardcore English buffs used to fear when people stopped speaking formal English, such as, "Thou art..." and say that "I am" was not a form of English, however, as people do grow to like their information quick and more to the point, blogs become a better fit for their consumption desires. However, traditional news does still have it's place.

Historically, TV took a segment of newspaper readers away from newspapers, and now blogs are taking from both TV and newspapers. Advertisers now target blogs, just as they do newspapers, radio and TV, in order to gain marketshare for their products. Politicians use them to get votes. Non-profits use them to raise money. Resistance is futile. Blogs are the new American Revolution.

Marat:

Dadburnit! We were hoping it was like poison to you, spammer.

Somebody up the dose.

Wow, I forgot what I said here a year and a half ago. I was quite a brash young pisser then.

The point I'd make now is that blogs help people do the research to be informed, even if it is for their own pre-conceived opinions and to serve writing for a limited audience. In the process of that research, people undoubtedly learn something they didn't know before if they find the right sources, which is something you have to worry about on the Net, with so little fact-checking. If they have the right perspective and enough objectivity to look at evidence, blogging is probably pretty educational and gives people practice in their writing.

But I must admit that I'm still pretty unimpressed whenever the few bloggers I've seen who HAVE broken through to the mainstream somewhat (like that "Wonkette" chick) make it on TV or into features in traditional newspapers. I think most probably have the same reaction -- why should I care about this person when they're not an expert or authority of any sort? It's the same sort of reaction I have to radio commentators when they write editorials. I don't like that reaction myself, but I think it's sort of automatic when educated people read and view opinion.

That is all.

Bob: I have a lot of sympathy for most of your comment but I think it's important to remember that just because someone is an "expert" does not necessarily mean that their perspective is sound. I prefer to listen to people from any background who expand my understanding of a situation, thus enabling me to make a better decision.

Heh. In this post (from my ignorant perspective) you mention "someone called Duke" and "someplace called GG for short"... It instantly reminded me of one of my best friends called Duke, whose webcomic is called Greek Geeks. And nobody except us close friends reads that either. And I don't think that many people read my blog.

But it's obvious that nothing we spend so much time doing is actually futile or meaningless for the people that keep doing it. Everyone has their reasons for spending time doing one thing instead of a million others that one could potentially choose to do. It all depends on each of our priorities.

Myself, I blog just to write my thoughts down, when I feel like I have something to say. And instead of keeping notes that fill up my desk with random pieces of paper that I later have to tidy up, I write things there for anyone who may care to read them. And anything anyone has to say is potentially interesting for *someone*. Plus I get to practise my writing skills - I'm more into scriptwriting, but every little helps [(c) Tesco :P].

And the same goes with webcomics. There's thousands out there, and most of them aren't too good anyway. But my friend started up as a mediocre artist and pun-writer and has gone a long, long way since. And that's what he wanted out of it, so that's what he got.

The Internet is a wonderful world in itself, and most people here "talk to themselves" hoping to be heard by someone, at some point. Like when I was a little girl, around 8 years old, and danced in our garden, fantasizing that someone would see me from their window and say "wow, she dances well". We all need that kind of hope once in a while, there's nothing wrong with it the way I see it.

And if money or fame or whatever else comes from it, well, great.

Great post. I started blogging about 8 months ago, and I'm not only a full fledged addict, but a craven comment whore to boot.

Although it seems like the whole world is blogging, according to the stats only a small proportion of people even read blogs. Those who don't generally assume all blogs are of the "Hi. Haven't posted in awhile. Let's see. Thought I had to go to the toilet earlier, but nothing came out. Will try again later and keep you posted" variety.

And indeed, a fair number of bloggers I've run across dallied with it for awhile and quit--even some who had a loyal readership. Like most challenging endeavors, perserverance is half the battle.

For me, as a writer and reviewer, blogging is one of the best things that's ever happened to me. And actually, checking out Blogcritics yesterday has engendered another life-shattering epiphany.

ERIC OLSEN, if you're reading this, I want to be a Blog Critic but I can't access your e-mail link! Please help!

I know I'm very far gone now, because I'm beginning to have blog dreams. I'm having them a lot.