In what appears at first to be part of his current fund-raising drive, Steve Gilliard offers up an interesting comparison between the dot-coms that went bust and blogs, which are flourishing. Steve is pretty well-placed to make this kind of analysis. One of the major draws at the now-defunct NetSlaves was Steve's analysis of the foibles of the dot-com era. Now he's a full-time blogger and suggests what blogs have that the early efforts at content-based websites missed.
People read a blog either because it challenges them or says things they agree with. They don't read it because it mimics the local paper. Or because it's cool. Blogs are the opposite of cool. They're involved, concerned, thoughtful. Even Wonkette, who pretends to be a drunken gossip, cares. The stories she runs are not random and not just about what is hip. If anything, blogs are the anti-hip. They aren't about detached irony. Because that is what drives Viacom. The hip, the cool, the new. The Daily Show is a hit because it is done by people who cares what happens, a Viacom exception. And this isn't a virtue of lefty blogs either. The right also cares what happens. In this, no one is too cool for the room.No one cared about dotcoms, it was all about money in the end. It was a mercenary mentality and got mercenary result. Blogs are a rejection of that and about the work of people who care and who think ideas matter. That it isn't just about who gets rich first.
If there is any success to blogs, it is because it has made the content on the computer human.
It's an interesting read.
Very instructive history for me, pogge, new to the 'sphere and dazzled as I am.
Staying independent is both the virtue and the burden of ... staying independent.
I find that 95% of Blogs that I chance upon are uncommented: that is the comment areas are unused.Do you have any ideas on why that is?
I am impressed with Bloggers intelligence and creativity, could it be that readers are intimidated by that?
POGGE, this is far and away one of the most interesting insights into blogging I have read anywhere. I have a little discussion going on the topic too, but this really puts weblogs into perspective. Great post.
treehugger:
Now you know why I read Steve Gilliard.
Steve:
I don't know that readers are intimidated by us bloggers. If they're intimidated, rather than uninterested or in too much of a hurry, it's more likely by the medium. A lot of my comments come from other bloggers, who are already comfortable with the medium and not at all shy about using it to express themselves.
Steve,
I frequented blogs for over a year, and slowly started commenting before I was comfortable enough start my own a couple of months ago.
There are plenty of weblogs with some excellent discussions going on, our gracious host here is a good example.
Just wade into the discussion or start one yourself. There is no monopoly on the truth in politics or most issues. The fun is in discussing and asserting your thoughts on an issue. About 70% of the folks in the Blogosphere are fair and decent in a discussion. If you run into one of the 30% of nasties, just move on to the next one. There is no shortage of places to discuss issues in a mature fashion. POGGE is a great example of that.
Would it be way off the mark to suggest that Gilliard just might be the Bukowski of Blogging?