Blogging: reports of death much exaggerated

There’s been a preposterous media fuss about a silly piece in Wired that was so off-beam I first thought it must be a spoof. It read like one of those pieces one finds in ‘lifestyle’ supplements. ‘Blogging is soooo yesterday’ was the general drift. It opens thus:

Writing a weblog today isn’t the bright idea it was four years ago. The blogosphere, once a freshwater oasis of folksy self-expression and clever thought, has been flooded by a tsunami of paid bilge. Cut-rate journalists and underground marketing campaigns now drown out the authentic voices of amateur wordsmiths. It’s almost impossible to get noticed, except by hecklers. And why bother? The time it takes to craft sharp, witty blog prose is better spent expressing yourself on Flickr, Facebook, or Twitter.

It looks as though the author of the Wired piece doesn’t know that blogging, like everything else on the Web, is subject to a Power Law distribution. This is an old story — remember Clay Shirky’s lovely essay on the subject many moons ago? But the operation of a power law says nothing about the rest of the distribution — the main part of the blogosphere, which seems to me to be as lively and as valuable as ever.

Now comes a splendid piece by Mick Fealty, onlie begetter of the wonderful Slugger O’Toole blog.

During last year’s Northern Irish election campaign, the one resource that had experts feeding from it time and time again was the anonymous blog, Sammy FB Morse has a posse which delivered 18 constituency guides unsurpassed in their quality and depth by anything the Irish MSM could reproduce.

Absolute numbers matter much less than the quality of the engagement. Though one is likely to follow the other, numbers are not always a pre-determinant of a good blog, and neither is a good blog always guaranteed good numbers. And as Niall Harbinson points out, the mainstream media is not always the best place to draw readership from.

Slugger is a case in point. In absolute terms it is large in Ireland, tiny in the UK. Yet in terms of penetration of its base market, Northern Ireland, Slugger has stolen a march on all other UK political blogs.

Slugger may be cross-party and multi-denominational, but over the last six years the blog has fumbled its way into a political mission of its own: making politics in Northern Ireland work. That means avoiding the dysfunctional relationship that blogs and newspapers have with politicians elsewhere. The increased political decentralisation that we see everywhere is, at least in part, the product of a media that is obsessed with the politics of personality, gossip from the “Westminster Village” and a focus on politics rather than policy.

Right on.

My schedule, not yours

This is an interesting development for those of us who follow the decline of push media.

Online and DVR audiences for the three Tina Fey skits on “Saturday Night Live” spoofing Sarah Palin were twice the size of the original television audience, according to data released Friday by Integrated Media Measurement Inc. (IMMI), a provider of consumer behavior and audience exposure data to media companies and advertisers.

Among all the people who saw at least one of the three SNL sketches, 33% watched it on television during the original broadcast and a staggering 67% watched after the original broadcast either online or on a DVR.

“This is the first time we’ve seen delayed viewing numbers this big,” said Amanda Welsh, head of research for San Mateo, Calif.-based IMMI. “Usually it’s the other way around, with the overwhelming majority of viewing occurring during the actual broadcast.”

Blogging and power

Interesting comment by Peter Preston on the BBC’s Business Editor, Robert Peston.

On both sides of the Atlantic, destitute bankers are looking round for someone to blame. ‘Did the media spook the market?’ asked Tina Brown’s new website (thedailybeast.com) on day one. British political journalists, testifying to a Lords committee, said Peston had ‘played an instrumental role’ in the story. And the Daily Mail, of course, took to the warpath, demanding: ‘Does this BBC man have too much power?’

One answer came fast from the Mail’s own political editor, talking to their Lordships. ‘More power to his elbow, if he’s the journalist leading the charge, good for him,’ said Ben Brogan warmly.

But pause, for a moment at least, and take cautious stock.

The Peston tale that spooked the City last week wasn’t even a broadcast to begin with. It started as a blog. Peston is prolific, blogging continually between studio shuttles. He can write three or four quick blogs a day, telling the net world what’s going on. It’s a brilliant service, where one thing goes with another. He’s a voracious newshound. The BBC has special salience and special clout. All that training comes specially trustworthy.

Yet the wire grows higher and higher. Blogs don’t go through anxious committees of editors, pondering deeply. They are self-publication, performed at the double.

Their speed is part of their attraction, and we’ve reached a stage where one man at his terminal can rain billions over Britain.

Bloomsbury Academic

Hooray! My friend Frances Pinter has launched her new publishing venture — Bloomsbury Academic — in conjunction with Bloomsbury.

Bloomsbury Academic is a radically new scholarly imprint launched in September 2008.

Bloomsbury Academic will begin publishing monographs in the areas of Humanities and Social Sciences. While respecting the traditional disciplines we will seek to build innovative lists on a thematic basis, on issues of particular relevance to the world today.

Publications will be available on the Web free of charge and will carry Creative Commons licences. Simultaneously physical books will be produced and sold around the world.

For the first time a major publishing company is opening up an entirely new imprint to be accessed easily and freely on the Internet. Supporting scholarly communications in this way our authors will be better served in the digital age…

I’m on the Advisory Board, along with Hal Abelson, Lynne Brindley, Robin Mansell, Reto Hilty, Winston Tabb and Shira Perimutter.

Breaking with convention(s)

I thought I was unshockable, but the news that there were 15,000 accredited journalists at the DNC took me aback. It leads one to ask: where’s the value they add? The answer is: nowhere. This was brought home very forcibly when I was able to watch Bill Clinton’s entire speech on YouTube — and then compare it with the little soundbitten excerpts relayed by the mainstream TV channels. Now that I can see this stuff for myself, I don’t need media folks on extravagant per diems to ‘interpret’ it for me.

Jeff Jarvis feels the same and has written a great column on the subject. Sample:

Nothing happens at the conventions. They are carefully staged spin theatre. The only reason for all these journalists to travel to Denver and St Paul is ego. They feel important for being there and their publications feel important for sending them. But their bylines matter little to readers.

We simply don’t need all their coverage of the conventions. Thanks to the internet anyone, anywhere, can read the best coverage of the top few news organisations. On Google News you’ll find thousands of articles devoted to the same stories, most telling us little we didn’t know or couldn’t have guessed. Go to YouTube or network sites and you can watch the speeches yourself.

Footnote: in the 1980s I covered some of the UK Party Conferences and observed, with astonishment, the size of the media contingent. The BBC, for example, usually sent about 120 people. And, in those days, most of the Corporation’s senior executives came down for a day or two to “sniff the air”, as it were (and stay in the most expensive hotels). It was ludicrous even then but conceivably could be justified because it was the only way of transmitting the proceedings to the public. But those days are gone.

iPlayer to offer series stacking

Yep. That’s what it says here

The BBC is to offer viewers the chance to catch up on every episode of some of their favourite series as “series stacking” is introduced to BBC iPlayer and programme sites from 13 September 2008.

Viewers will be able to enjoy any episode, after it has first been broadcast, for the duration of the entire series…

Poynter Online – Forums

The Manaing Editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer has sent a memo to all staff. It reads, in part:

Colleagues – Beginning today, we are adopting an Inquirer first policy for our signature investigative reporting, enterprise, trend stories, news features, and reviews of all sorts. What that means is that we won’t post those stories online until they’re in print. We’ll cooperate with philly.com, as we do now, in preparing extensive online packages to accompany our enterprising work. But we’ll make the decision to press the button on the online packages only when readers are able to pick up The Inquirer on their doorstep or on the newsstand.

For our bloggers, especially, this may require a bit of an adjustment. Some of you like to try out ideas that end up as subjects of stories or columns in print first. If in doubt, consult your editor. Or me or Chris Krewson…

This has caused quite a stor in the blogosphere. For example, Jeff Jarvis writes:

Let me make this very clear to Inquirer ownership and management:

You are killing the paper. You might as well just burn the place down. You’re setting a match to it. This is insane. Even the slowest, most curmudgeonly, most backward in your dying, suffering industry would not be this stupid anymore. They know that the internet is the present and the future and the paper is the past. Protecting the past is no strategy for the future. It is suicide. It is murder. You should be ashamed of yourselves…