Tag: Weblogs

  • I’m on another A-list… so shoot me now

    Risking pissyness from those not on his list directed to those who are, Steve Rubel creates a collection of 10 blogs he likes. I’m honored to be included. Thanks, Steve.

    But what’s really cool about this is that Steve also suggested that others should create their top 10 lists and give them a Technorati tag: 10blogs. Click on that and you’ll find other lists rapidly swarming.

    And that, again, is the point: There is no one list. We all have our own lists. That is the beauty of this new world.

    : And while we’re on this (dangerous) topic, Tish G. came back from BlogHer and insisted that the A-list is some old-boys club:

    Stop being the Wizard beind the Curtain and just admit what you’re about–creating an old boy’s network that excludes anyone who doesn’t blog in the exact manner that you deem relavent.

    Allow me to don your hairshirt of the offended and say that I’m sick of people attacking me because I ended up on a meaningless list. I didn’t create a club, join a club, go to any club meetings. I am not now and have not been a member of the worldwide A conspiracy.

    But the real point, Tish, is that you’re missing the real point of this new world: There is no club. No one can stop you from speaking anymore. You can be heard if you have something someone wants to hear. Use that freedom. Fly with it. Stop growling on the ground.

    Karl Martino reacts to this same notion in a very good post:

    The A-list isn’t an organized group. It isn’t a cabal that conspires in the middle of the night to draw linkage. To think so is pretty ridiculous considering in many cases this list is composed of sites that represent opposite extremes.

    It is just a natural occurrence. Human nature. In this case users vote with their links – links they may have (probably have) been found from an influential (heavily linked to blogger) in the first place.

    The seminal piece on this behavior remains Clay Shirky’s “Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality“. It’s a must read. It’s funny when A-listers deny the A-list – they don’t link to – or mention – this piece. [Heh. Just made that a self-denying prophecy. -ed]

    Some would argue that the A-list, even if it exists, doesn’t matter. That thousands of D-list links can exceed the value in attention-driving a single A-list link can deliver. Indeed, I think this is true. However, the time it takes to be heard among so many can take much, much longer then what one related A-list link can do in a few hours. The difference can be astronomical and can’t be underestimated….

    But heard by whom, Karl? If you want to be heard by an audience the size of TV Guide, then we’re all Z list. But then, TV Guide isn’t A list itself anymore either, is it? That’s the way the world is going: The mass is dead! Long live the niches!

    We need to stop thinking in the old terms of mass market, big circulation, big ratings, blockbusters. That world is dying. We need to stop thinking that when we are in a niche, we’re in something lesser. No, it means we’re in a community. We’re in a good conversation, not a loud crowd.

    I used to write for an alleged audience of 25 million at TV Guide and People. Now I write for an audience of a few thousand. Call that whatever damned list you like. I like it much better.

  • Changing news

    Today The New York Times announced to its staff that it is combining the print and online newsrooms. I can’t and won’t comment on that specifically because I don’t know much about it and because of this full disclosure: I consult for The New York Times Company. Similarly, I did not comment on the specifics of these issues when I worked at Advance with its 29 newspapers, though I have said that my final reason for moving on what that I did not want to be the change agent in newsrooms. They’re hardly the only ones going through this change: CBS News says that all 1,500 employees of its employees now work for the online service. Even TV Guide is grappling with fundamental change; see my post on milking the cash cow here. A few weeks ago, I also wrote about changing the newsroom.

    The essential truth of all this is that a fundamental change in media is driving fundamental change in the market, which should be driving fundamental change in news products, which must cause fundamental change in newsrooms.

    That is what we are witnessing now. I often hear people say that big-media executives don’t get it, that they don’t get the imperative for change. Well, they’re getting it. They have no choice.

    Each organization will debate — until the cash cows come home — about who should drive that change.

    Each organization and each executive will debate — until retirement — about the form that change should take.

    Each of us will debate — until somebody goes out of business — whether they are successful.

    But make no mistake: Change is inevitable.

  • State of the art

    Dave Sifry of Technorati issues another of his state of the blogosphere reports:

    * Technorati was tracking over 14.2 Million weblogs, and over 1.3 billion links in July 2005
    * The blogosphere continues to double about every 5.5 months
    * A new blog is created about every second, there are over 80,000 created daily
    * About 55% of all blogs are active, and that has remained a consistent statistic for at least a year
    * About 13% of all blogs are updated at least weekly

  • Not getting it

    I don’t get it. From the start, I would have thought that Current.TV would have been built to be seen by anyone anywhere. Why shouldn’t I be able to watch the stream online? Better yet, why shouldn’t I get to see the segments they air whenever I want? Better yet, why shouldn’t I see the stuff they don’t air, too? Best yet, why don’t I find the stuff I like and distribute it for them?

    That is the potential of Current. I don’t see that online now. Too bad.

    : Broadcasting & Cable is live-blogging the launch of Current — which, if they did any of the things above, would be unnecessary, eh?