BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Blogs make TV stars

13 comments on Blogs make TV stars

Blogs make TV stars

: Rick Kaplan, president of MSNBC, said at the session I Oprahed yesterday that blogging actually drives ratings on shows and that there is a corollation between shows that devote effort to blogging and the growth in audience.

Wow.

The only problem with moderating a session is that you can’t blog it at the time. I wanted to tell Kaplan to hold that thought while I turned around and blogged it here.

Also, Jill Abramson of the NY Times said she is looking to blogs for talent. “Watch out for the resumes that are going to hit you,” I said. She said that’s fine. She’s looking for people with reporting chops.

Transcript here, starting at 16:08

13 responses to “Blogs make TV stars”

  1. Seth Finkelstein Avatar
    Seth Finkelstein

    Did he actually mean that? Or, is it in fact true? It wasn’t clear to me if he had confused CORRELATION with CAUSATION.

  2. Michael Zimmer Avatar
    Michael Zimmer

    He’s probably right that there’s a correlation, but that does not mean there is causation.

  3. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    I believe he is saying that he sees the correlation and believes it is causation.

  4. Seth Finkelstein Avatar
    Seth Finkelstein

    Well, it would be an easy mistake to make, as shows with big PR budgets, or growing in audience for some other reason, might also have growing blog effort.

  5. paul_lukasiak Avatar
    paul_lukasiak

    There is a specific instance in which a telejournalist’s blog probably did increase his audience—
    LOTS of people started watching Olberman because he was staying current in his blog on the Ohio election issue.

  6. John Avatar
    John

    Any follow-up with Abramson on what type of blogs she was looking at, Jeff, and did she offer up any specific names or sites? Having the Times people looking at blogs is all well and good, but if they’re cocooning themselves in the neighborhood of the blogosphere that basically agrees with the Times’ world view, they’re really not doing much more than shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  7. Angus Jung Avatar
    Angus Jung

    “LOTS of people started watching Olberman because he was staying current in his blog on the Ohio election issue.”
    What’s he up to, an .04?

  8. Angus Jung Avatar
    Angus Jung

    Sorry, an 0.4! Even MSNBC wouldn’t keep him around with an .04.

  9. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    John: That’s all I heard re the times.

  10. Brendan Greeley Avatar
    Brendan Greeley

    Jeff –
    When I asked the general question “Are established papers looking to blogs for talent” I heard a slightly different response. Jill Abramson responded “Absolutely,” and then told the story of running Dahlia Lithwick on the Times oped page.
    I like Lithwick’s writing and Slate, but Slate is not exactly a blog; it’s a well-financed, corporate-backed online paper. Abramson was being — from her perspective — open and honest, and after the session, she graciously acceded to my request to send her my own blog clips.
    But her answer was instructive. I don’t think it means that the Times is scanning any blogs, left or right, for new talent. I think it means that the Jill Abramson is open to the idea of online journalism, still wedded to the idea that only a newsroom can back up good writing with sourcing and fact-checking, and is taking this whole thing one step at a time.

  11. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Brendan: As I recall, she acknowledged before she mentioned Lithwick that she wasn’t not a blogger. Nonetheless, I think your conclusions are right.

  12. Mic Avatar
    Mic

    if he means correlation he must not think of direct impact nor effect!

  13. Brendan Greeley Avatar
    Brendan Greeley

    I love it when this happens. I don’t remember what she said about Lithwick not being a blogger, but I’m also sure that you’re right that she mentioned it. I posted my comment because I figured you’d redacted what she said to make it simpler and to get to the point quicker.
    It turns out, of course, that I’ve done the exact same thing, to get to my point quicker. Dammit.