Comments on: Blog Readership Increasing — Or Not

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:15:39 +0000

It would seem that until blogs get over whatever the MSM has to say, or how they characterize blogs, this insecurity will remain. What do you expect ? Papers didn't go away after the telegraph, radio didn't go away after TV, MSM will not go away because of blogs. All will eventually co-exist is some way.

By: QandO

QandO — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:31:19 +0000

Ground control to NYT

As James Joyner at Outside the Beltway points out, the NYTimes still doesn't know what a blog is:

By: Spear Shaker

Spear Shaker — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:20:47 +0000

MSM prefer to report on blogs as if they're some kind of exotic disease, or fad, sweeping the seamy underbelly of American society.

By: kappiy

kappiy — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:53:36 +0000

James, I would argue that polls taken that early are inconsequential since much of the public isn't paying close attention to the Presidential race. Wasn't McCain "leading" the polls at that point in 1999? People paying close attention to the race, of course, are a minority of the poeple who actually wind up voting (the only "poll" that matters). Dean polled high with those folks probably because of his anti-war stance.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:38:24 +0000

Dean was certainly the frontrunner until right before the Iowa primaries--although not so much because of blogs. But he was the runaway favorite in all the polls until his candidacy began to implode right after the capture of Saddam Hussein.

By: Promethea

Promethea — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:37:31 +0000

I noticed that MSM articles on blogs seem to go out of their way to make blogs seem inconsequential. Few of the articles mention the specific names of the blogs that brought down Dan Rather and CBS, i.e. Power Line and Little Green Footballs. Now Belmont Club and Diplomad are going after the UN--but the MSM doesn't mention this. There is also very little on Jihadism and the true beliefs of Islam mentioned--which the blogs are exceptional in analyzing.

By: kappiy

kappiy — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:36:46 +0000

The mainstream press is generally clueless on a lot of things.

I always find it incredibly stupid whenever any commentator claims that Dean was the "front-runner in the Democratic primary" due to blogs. Dean was NEVER a front-runner--if I remember correctly, he lost every primary except Vermont. Dean bloggers may have been important for raising money for his candidacy, but they had minimal effect in generating substantial support for his candidacy.

If anything, according to this logic the Dean example would support the thesis that blogging is rather marginal to the public discourse (not that I am advocating this argument).