« About Leslie Felperin | Main | Because This Kind Of Thing Never Happens... »
February 21, 2006
The Media Raises Blogs To The Sky... And Now The Brickbats Start...
I have always felt...
1. Not everything on the web is a blog.
2. A web of blogs would never replace mainstream reportage... but it would force a cut in the fat and the arrogance of the once mighty. (As in, it is no longer reasonable to simply accept everything in the New York Times as the most accurate, though the NYT has the best platform from which to pursue the most accurate coverage.)
3. Media's obsession with gossip-driven Gawker Media made it the next generation of the AICN phenomenon... very juicy and very vulnerable to close examination... inevitably to be discounted by those same hypesters.
The "democracy of blogs" has always been a quick flash moment, because in the end, it is always about distribution. The same was true of the digital revolution in cinema. Just as Sundance has become the gatekeeper for the thousands of unwatchable movies made for $8000 on a digital camera (while surely missing one or two gems every year), the traditional media has been, for the most part, the gatekeeper for internet sites.
It is ironic, because Old Media guides people to New Media, so in the spirit of self-preservation, OM always seems to embrace the most frivolous things on the web, while growling about the frivolous irresponsibility of it all. And then there are middle outlets, like Slate, Salon, and I think, oddly, MCN, that are stuck with the worst of both worlds… not print enough to be given full respect… not web enough to wallow in the very sticky gossip game that is so often misstated as important by Old Media.
Anyway, it seems time for the first serious attacks on the web – which appropriately are starting in The Financial Times, which gets right to the heart of these business being overfunded and purchased, just as in the first round of internet buying – followed by Slate’s “Twilight of the Blogs - Are they over as a business?,” which does lead with the real question… were blogs ever much of a business?
It’s simple. If you can deliver 100,000 committed ad watchers a day, you should be able to operate a nice business. After that, it’s just economies of scale. And of you can deliver tens of thousands of narrowcast viewers every day, you should be able to run a very solid small business within a niche. But there has never been a model for these businesses to compete with TV dollars. And there is a very real strategic problem in taking newspaper dollars, since none of these outlets have the daily page count to make as much space available. On top of that, few advertisers are set up to do the web design for ads that change daily the way ads change in print. Look in the trades and you’ve seen dozens of looks for FYC ads this season. The only new banners you’ve seen on MCN come when a new award comes up to promote. I have seen many different billboard and bus stop ads for the next X-Men movie… excellent stuff. But why isn’t that campaign on MCN, a different X-Man taking a stand each day this week? It’s simple, it’s relatively cheap, it’s targeted… but they aren’t ready to go there yet.
Anyway… the point of this was to note that the hounds of hell are being pointed at “blogs” after a year or two of excessive hype. Built it up… tear it down. Love that media!
Posted by poland at February 21, 2006 10:16 AM
Comments
Blogs, New Media, the net news are here to stay. It's the first time Old Media has had some competition in a while. They were scared of television too when it burst on the scene. Hopefully, the coming new media will help weed out the weak in the Old Media and we'll all be better for it.
Posted by: Terence D
at February 21, 2006 10:56 AM
"The traditional media has been, for the most part, the gatekeeper for internet sites."
That I would disagree with, unless you think that traditional media "validates" internet sites by featuring them. Traditional outlets with a higher age demographic tend to be late to the cultural party, so that once a site shows up in the NY Times, for example, you can bet it has already attracted a huge audience on its own through little more than word of mouth.
Posted by: James Leer
at February 21, 2006 11:08 AM
I'd rather read three rockin' columns from Poland every week than twenty thin-skinned reactions on the blog. I think the b-word brings out the worst... whatever the intentions, it all comes back to ruffling feathers.
But, as was the case yesterday, it CAN be entertaining as hell.
Posted by: Crow T Robot
at February 21, 2006 11:12 AM
I like content filled articles and columns. But a blog is good for the little stuff. The quick stuff that comes out. Little, light reaction pieces. But it won't beat any of the full columns.
Posted by: Bruce
at February 21, 2006 11:34 AM
I agree James that OM does confirm status. But the reality is, the "next level" comes when OM starts promoting the website or blog, at least as far as ads go. More people have heard of Defamer than read Defamer... but you can be sure than half the ads they get are because of that OM cred, which they hear on Madison Ave.
Posted by: David Poland
at February 21, 2006 11:42 AM
You do need the street cred before you can claim a place at the table.
Posted by: LesterFreed
at February 21, 2006 12:16 PM
The writer of the FT article is engaging in a give-and-take at this... blog: http://ftmagblog.blogspot.com/
Posted by: prideray
at February 21, 2006 12:59 PM
Gawker is good for some laughs but serious, real content? Nah.
Posted by: PandaBear
at February 21, 2006 01:07 PM
Speaking of blogs... you guys have to read Bill O'Reilly's homophobic, amateurish take on Brokeback this week...
Classic out of touch Billy Boy.
Posted by: Crow T Robot
at February 21, 2006 04:07 PM
I saw that.
"According to friends of mine who have seen "Brokeback," the key scene takes place in a pup tent. Apparently, two shepherds "bond" in said tent. If I do see the movie, I know what will run through my mind during that scene: What would Clint, Lee and Eli have done had they stumbled upon the tent? I believe gunfire might have been involved."
Wow, how classy.
Certainly, he goes on to say that prejudice against gay people is wrong, but his implication that the behavior of "Clint, Lee, and Eli" might have his tacit approval is more than a little frightening.
Posted by: James Leer
at February 21, 2006 04:50 PM
Two things that I thought were funny about Billy's column:
He was shocked shocked that Hollywood was involved in culture-shaping.
He believes the days of Gone with the Wind type films winning best picture are over in favor of "message" films. Yeah, Lord of the Rings was a very distant two years ago.
Posted by: palmtree
at February 21, 2006 05:08 PM
The days of GONE WITH THE WIND type movies will never be over. They're just hard to find and even harder to produce.
Posted by: Fades To Black
at February 21, 2006 05:11 PM
The X Men campaign should be here and on other web sites. Movie fans do come here don't they?
Maybe they think they already have this market cornered.
Posted by: Yodas Nut Sac
at February 21, 2006 06:23 PM
At least O'Reilly admits he hasn't seen the movie, because bisexual shepherds aren't on his viewing wish list. I guess curiosity, exploration, or empathy aren't on his 'to do' list in general.
But yeah, this is the same old crap, new day, recycling the "Hollywood is out of touch" argument about ignoring the highest-grossing films of the year.
I don't know why anyone pays attention to him.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at February 21, 2006 06:59 PM
"The writer of the FT article is engaging in a give-and-take at this... blog: http://ftmagblog.blogspot.com/"
Well, that's irony for ya... didn't take long for someone to turn this into a conversation about Brokeback Mountain, though. Maybe the first response to every post Poland makes should be something about Brokeback Mountain in the same way that the first comment on every AICN post is "FIRST." Just a thought. :)
Posted by: EDouglas
at February 22, 2006 05:17 AM
it usually takes about 3 posts to turn a thread into a brokeback thread. it can be a thread about narnia and someone will find a way to incorporate brokeback into it.
Posted by: bicycle bob
at February 22, 2006 06:00 AM
O'Reilly. Highest rated show on cable. I guess someone pays attention to him huh? Shows how out of touch you are jeff Leer.
Hollywood isn't about "statements"? What do you call each of the five Best Picture nominees? 5 low grossing movies all preaching a statement.
Posted by: Josh
at February 22, 2006 06:43 AM
First = Brokeback.
That's really funny.
Especially if you post on AICN too.
Posted by: Bruce
at February 22, 2006 07:04 AM
Bills Point: Hollywood makes movies to change the culture of society.
What he doesn't get is Hollywood could care less about culture or values or changing anything. They only care about the bottom line and what movies can make a few bucks.
Posted by: Yodas Nut Sac
at February 22, 2006 08:36 AM
That's all well and good. But how does that explain the Oscars and all the films nominated being Message films?
They just patting themselves on the back?
Posted by: Josh
at February 22, 2006 08:45 AM
The http://ftmagblog.blogspot.com/ site is a really good back and forth on blogging and the net in general.
Posted by: BluStealer
at February 22, 2006 08:58 AM
I don't know if 2% of the general online going public can tell you what Gawker Media is.
That's a site that could really use a top notch partner to help it.
Posted by: Charly Baltimore
at February 22, 2006 10:38 AM
The Chicago Tribune, as fogey as any media is old, has weighed in, twice repeating the canard that "Al Gore invented the internet."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0602220029feb22,0,6109543.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed
"No sooner had Al Gore invented the Internet than early adopters discovered a liberating opportunity: Anybody with a modem and an ego could share his or her thoughts with the world.... You're forgiven if you cling to the conventional wisdom that blogging, like half-pipe snowboarding, enjoys an unrelievedly rich future. Forgiven, but maybe behind the curve... Gallup finds only 9 percent of Internet users saying they frequently read blogs, with 11 percent reading them occasionally. Thirteen percent of Internet users rarely bother, and 66 percent never read blogs... The pixels hadn't faded on Gallup's downbeat report when Slate.com columnist Daniel Grossman chimed in with another requiem, "Twilight of the Blogs." ... Even if blogging flops as a business and doesn't attract more readership, many bloggers will still have loyal followings. Gallup's report gives a nod to the chattering class--that segment of inordinately dialed-in Americans who are enthralled with, or at least entertained by, one another's opinions about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ... So blogging has a future, however indefinite. At least till Al Gore invents the Next Big Thing."
Now for the blog part, which involves planting a small thorn of greater accuracy into the furry paw of an outsized creature: Gore, in an interview on CNN, said, as part of a list of things he supported, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." [More at http://www.sethf.com/gore/]
Posted by: prideray
at February 22, 2006 10:41 AM
al gore. a true renaissance man.
Posted by: bicycle bob
at February 22, 2006 11:11 AM
Prideray, I think that article is being facetious about Al Gore "inventing" the internet.
Posted by: James Leer
at February 22, 2006 12:02 PM
You mean the Trib doesn't really think Al Gore invented the internet???
Say it ain't so, yo!
Posted by: Josh
at February 22, 2006 12:37 PM
When were blogs ever a business? I didn't think they were a big business part of any website or any Old Media or New Media. Can you make money off a blog?
Posted by: Angelus21
at February 22, 2006 01:46 PM
Hey Josh: do you dislike 'statement movies' in general, or just these five movies in particular (which raises the other question, have you even seen them?)
Posted by: jeffmcm
at February 22, 2006 02:28 PM
Jeffmcm - "I guess curiosity, exploration, or empathy aren't on his 'to do' list in general".
Empathy. Two Marlboro Men in sham marriages are now the poster kids for cinematic empathy.
Excuse me if I decide to save mine for movies like Born Into Brothels. Ya know - real people going through truly harsh times.
But ya know, that's probably just me and my out-of-whack priorities.
Posted by: Martin S
at February 22, 2006 02:40 PM
It's the lead editorial and the Tribune is not being facetious. Why slag someone twice who has nothing to do with the point you're attempting to make? It's numb.
Posted by: prideray
at February 22, 2006 02:41 PM
Martin: Did Bill O'Reilly ever praise Born Into Brothels in any way, shape, or form?
My comment was to point out that he's happy to mock a movie he hasn't seen to make a cheap political point, and that he makes it clear that he isn't interested in learning about any way of life outside of his own. That's a lack of curiosity and empathy.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at February 22, 2006 02:45 PM
Some people want more out of their movie going experience than curiosity and empathy. It's not cheap to attend movies nowadays.
But if you're going to write nationally syndicated articles based on a movie, you should really pony up the dough and see it. Walk out if you want but at least try.
Posted by: joefitz84
at February 22, 2006 02:46 PM
GONE WITH THE WIND is indeed a message movie. The message: This is what happens when you don't pay the help.
Posted by: Cadavra
at February 22, 2006 03:40 PM
Hey Joefitz: when you say people want more out of their movie going experience, what are you thinking of? Boobs or explosions or both?
Posted by: jeffmcm
at February 22, 2006 05:23 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)