Blogging a dead horse
Does Doc Searls have some sort of contract that requires him to use some variation on the term "blog" in just about every single post he makes? Annoying.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Blogging may well be a revolution in publishing. It will not be much of a revolution if its only topic of conversation is itself. Right now all I see are two types of logs:
1. As above, the Wired-Kevin Kelly "Prepare to throw away your houses and live in New Economy Internet Huts!" self-congratulatory McFuturism booster types, whose weblogs are about little else than weblogs per se, and wear thin daily; and
2. The vast number of teenagers, mothers, and jes plain folks, who seem to be using blogs almost as a sort of adjunct to IM: a sort of extended message to friends in public. These blogs are much less conscious of a greater audience and tend to not care whether you know what the writer is talking about or not. In many ways more refreshing and interesting than Doc Searls or Dave Winer yelling "Big media (or BigPubs (Rock ON, radical millionaire dude! Off the Bigs!) ) is dead!" yet again. Sure it is. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Comments
What if we discovered that blogs were no more a "medium" than paper is? I think it will soon be time to start differentiating even more. You don't talk about reading written words printed on paper; you talk about reading a magazine, reading a book, reading a newspaper. Blogs came about because of technology allowing easy sequential additions of written content to the web. Blogger made it possible. What people do with it is what they do, and I wager it will be far more nuanced than can be contained in the single term "blogging."
Posted by: Luke | April 20, 2002 3:54 AM