Blogs Falling In An Empty Forest

Perfect headline for a final post, don’t you think?

It’s also the headline of an old NYT piece about the dismal failure rate of blogs–about 95 percent, as of 2009. I’m the author of two abandoned blogs now, so that statistic hardly surprises me.

And yet, I’m about to launch another blog (!!!) Possibly two. One for strictly professional and self-promotional purposes. The other for reasons entirely personal…

Because most blogs have an audience of exactly one–a truism I intend to embrace with my next blogging venture. The highly personal one anyway, which will be another tumbleweed in the wastelands of the Internet, alongside all of the other unfulfilled hopes and unsolicited opinions. And I’m OK with that.  I’ll have plenty of company, at least. Maybe I’ll post the link to my new blog here. Maybe not. We’ll see…

[Photo courtesy of Flickr user slimmer_jimmer]

Why the “Bloggers vs. Journalists” Debate Is Silly

As a blogger and journalist-in-training, I have always found the Will Bloggers Replace Journalism? debate irksome and misguided.

Show me these mythical bloggers — typing feverishly in their parents’ basements, still in pajamas, presumably — who are plotting the overthrow of journalism. Good luck finding them, because the only ones debating that question are either old-media journalists anxious about losing their monopoly or outsiders who understand neither blogging nor journalism.

Earlier this year, a survey conducted by PR Week and PR Newswire found that 52 percent of bloggers consider themselves journalists — cue the snorts and tongue clucking.

But there’s a substantial overlap between bloggers and journalists: 35 percent of bloggers are/were professional journalists, according to a 2009 study by Technorati.

Here are some other stats to consider, found via Marketing Pilgrim:

• Over 75% of reporters see blogs as helpful in giving them story ideas, story angles and insight into the tone of an issue.
• 70% of reporters check a blog list on a regular basis.
• 21% of reporters spend over an hour per day reading blogs.
• 57% of reporters read blogs at least two to three times a week.

That same survey, conducted among working reporters and editors, found that 30 percent of those surveyed have their own blog.

Their figures back up those of Technorati, which also had this to add:

Some Empathy for Empathy-Deficient “Generation Me”

Generation Me: Now with 40 percent less empathy.

According to a new study, today’s college students are less likely than their counterparts of 20 and 30 years ago to agree with statements such as: “I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective” and “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.”

“Many people see the current group of college students — sometimes called ‘Generation Me‘ – as one of the most self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident and individualistic in recent history” — Researcher Sara Konrath to LiveScience.com.

Being overly confident, self-centered, full of entitlement, annoying in general — it’s called being young. Young people have been making those mistakes since the beginning of time. If today’s students lag behind their counterparts, perhaps it’s because youth itself has been prolonged — the average 25 year old from 1979, for example, probably had far more adult responsibilities than the 25 year old of today. And it’s not all their (or their parents’) fault: the job market and the slashing of employee benefits like healthcare play a large role.

As for empathy, some are highly empathic from birth; but most need some hard knocks from life before their puny, feeble Grinch-sized hearts can grow.

I picked up this little gem on YouTube, via a great RSA Animate illustration of the words of Jeremy Rifkin:

How My Blog Got Noticed and Promoted by a Super Influencer

Today I found this post via @copyblogger: How to Get Your Blog Noticed and Promoted by Super Influencers.

That’s exactly what happened to me two days ago, with my prior blog post — but without even trying.

From Pushing Social’s aforementioned post:

“I’ve discovered that the top thought leaders on the web will bend over backwards to help a true fan.”

Very true, that. My top thought leader — one of the top 140 influencers on Twitter – somehow found my post almost immediately after I posted (Google Alerts, perhaps?). He used his Twitter platform to promote my post, called it “clever” even (my self-esteem is going to get a lot of mileage from that, for years to come). How did I find out? I noticed a sudden spike in traffic of rocket-launch proportions — a 1300% increase — which prompted me to investigate. And for one shining moment, I felt like an old-Hollywood starlet discovered at some lunch counter — plucked from obscurity, as it were.

But sic transit gloria — the glory fades. Still, I did pick up some Twitter followers. And I enjoyed  basking in the reflected starlight, however brief.

In the end, though, it’s still the quality of the content that reigns supreme: If I don’t build it, they won’t come (back). So… it’s back to work for me.

[How to Get Your Blog Noticed and Promoted by Super Influencers]

Celebrity Deathmatch, Journo-Nerd Edition

Last night, I attended a lecture entitled “The Death and Life of American Journalism,” given by Robert W. McChesney. Twenty minutes in, this much was clear: this guy understands the “death” part rather well; the “life” part, not so much.

If only Jay Rosen were here — that’s what I kept thinking as I fidgeted and waited for the Q & A portion to start. McChesney’s condescension toward citizen journalism, bloggers, Twitter — basically anything new or revolutionary beyond his ken — was great at eliciting clucks and gasps from the scores of elderly ladies present. But I found it infuriating, and deserving of a Rosen-style smackdown.

I got no such satisfaction. Not in real life. So I’m creating it here, by pitting some of Rosen’s ideas against McChesney’s. Here’s the match-up:

In this corner, we have Robert McChesney, professor of communication at the University of Illinois, host of the weekly radio talk show “Media Matters,” cofounder of the media reform organization Free Press, and author of 16 books on media and politics.

In the other corner, we have Jay Rosen, professor of journalism at New York University, press critic, writer and one of the top 140 influencers on Twitter.

How to win affection on Twitter

Today I went through the list of Tweeps I follow, weeding out a few here and there. It got me thinking about why I like the tweeple I like, how those tweeple pull it off. The ones who do it best, and thus have the most influence, do it through some combination of the following:

1. Be generous. Retweet. Participate in Follow Friday (#FF). Make Twitter lists that others can appreciate. Use the Twitter platform to do some good when you can. For example, by helping people locate answers, or promote a worthy cause, or find a transplant donor for their dying 4 year old child, etc. Show you can be a mensch. Think about it: In whom would you rather invest your limited resources (such as attention)? The generous person who may one day be of service to you, or the person who seems to ask only, “What’s in it for me?”
2. Show some emotion. Don’t be a Stepford Tweeter. Don’t be afraid to show enthusiasm, or passion, or strong opinions. I don’t mean be emotional — there’s a difference. Words express emotion (such as “wow,” “great,” “sucks,” when used sparingly). So do @jayrosen_nyu and @jeffjarvis, for example, but I’d never describe them as emotional.
3. Be unique. The easiest way? Allow snippets of your personality to peek through, where appropriate. Otherwise, you’ll just fade into the Twitterverse. But always remember to retain some mystique. Because an unknown property is inherently more interesting, and I’m always going to want it (you) more.
4. Be smart. Don’t underestimate the intelligence of your audience. Copyblogger crunched some data and found that smarter headlines actually get retweeted more often than those that are dumbed down. As David Foster Wallace once said, the best writers remind a reader of just how smart he/she really is.
5. Make me laugh. Or at least display, on occasion, a well-developed sense of humor. Two Tweeters who do this well (for journo nerds like me, anyway): @FakeAPStylebook and @OHnewsroom
6. Show discerning taste. Prove that you have good editorial taste and judgment. In order to do that, you need to…
7. Include links. Be useful. Point me toward something new. Be a link in the chain, not a dead-end alley.

Social Networks Have Become “Social Entertainment,” Study Claims

All the world’s a stage, and we its (unpaid) Reality Stars.

The Internet, as a source of entertainment, is now second only to television, according to a new study by Edelman, the world’s largest independent public relations firm.

Peruse a site like Openbook, and you’ll see: Facebook is an embarrassment of riches, and crawling with oversharing “reality stars” who entertain with their bad behavior. On the Facebook show, characters cheat, visit strip clubs, tell you when they’re “having a wank,” share the results of their rectal exams, et cetera and ad nauseam.

There’s a reason producers love reality shows: they’re cheap to produce and have high profit margins. The Facebook show is even cheaper to produce — nobody gets paid. Except Zuckerberg et al., that is.

[News Unfiltered: Study Reveals Shift as Social Networks Become 'Social Entertainment']

Glenn Greenwald calls out well-intentioned progressives’ disgust re: “Is Kagan Gay?”

Is this just another example of a blog post that “could only be written by a straight person“?

I suspect Salon’s Glenn Greenwald would say yes:

Indeed, the very notion that it is “outrageous” or “despicable” to inquire into a public figure’s sexual orientation — adjectives I heard repeatedly applied to those raising questions about Kagan — is completely inconsistent with the belief that sexual orientation is value-neutral.   If being straight and gay are precise moral equivalents, then what possible harm can come from asking someone, especially one who seeks high political office:  ”are you gay?”

What possible harm? Er, being gay can still make you the target of a hate crime and get you kicked out of the military, for example — right? If the question is so innocuous, why do others in high political office — see Senator Lindsey Graham, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I might add — evade the question? Am I alone in seeing the hypocrisy of demanding an answer from Kagan but not from the Senators in charge of questioning and confirming her?

For the record, I believe sexual orientation should be a value-neutral attribute. I understand the Harvey Milk position: coming out to friends, neighbors, colleagues can be the most powerful antidote to homophobia. But what about all the others who don’t share my views? Am I wrong to worry? Is it wrong to be irked when The Gay Question hijacks the Kagan debate and diverts attention from the far more pressing question: Does Kagan have principles, and what the hell does she stand for, anyway? Am I guilty of condescension if I want to “protect” others from being forced to divulge sensitive personal information that can be used against them?

When an openly gay intellectual like Greenwald questions my position, I pay attention, and sincerely rethink my views — as a straight person, perhaps I’m missing something? Who is right?

Answer: I think both Greenwald and I may be guilty of a bit of projection, of turning these questions about Kagan into questions about ourselves, as Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick argues:

So, “Is Kagan an Ivy League elitist” may actually mean “Am I an Ivy League elitist?” “Is Kagan a soulless careerist?” may be read as “Am I a soulless careerist?” and “Hey! Why isn’t Kagan married?” starts to sound an awful lot like “Hey! Why am I not married?”….

If we’re going to talk about Kagan, let’s stick to her record, her writings, and her speeches. And if you want to talk about your love life, looks, academic anxieties, ambition, dreams of marriage, or dating history, I’m also all ears. But maybe let’s just leave her out of it?

Have to say, I get Lithwick’s point. But I still totally respect and admire you, Glenn (you don’t remember me from NYU Law, do you?).

[Equating sexual orientation with "sex life" - Elena Kagan, Supreme Court Nominee - Salon.com]

[Can we please stop talking about Supreme Court nominees like they are real people? - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine]

Twitter is the reason I am blogging less

Well, that and looming story deadlines — which usually max out my daily quota of words and capacity for thought. But like the best of desserts, there’s always room in my news-and-information diet for Twitter.

My conversion from Twitter Skeptic to Twitter True Believer is a recent development — to be frank, I used to look upon Twitter as somewhat of a cultural joke. But thanks to Sree Sreenivasan, professor of journalism at Columbia University, I am starting to learn how to tap into the power of Twitter.

Here are my Top Three Reasons for using Twitter:

1. “Facebook is for people you used to know, and Twitter is for people you want to know.” — Thomas Crampton. Most of the people I follow on Twitter would never “friend” me on Facebook. But on Twitter, there’s no barrier preventing me from reading what they read, and sharing what they share — no permission required. There’s a lot to be learned (for me as a journalist, anyway) from following prominent doers and thinkers in the world of news and media.
2. Twitter is like a virtual water cooler where you can share interesting links with interesting people. In real life, I keep mum about a lot of the things I’m interested in — too risky when you don’t know a person’s sensibility, interests and world-view. But on Twitter, I can congregate around others who are both compatible and also different enough from me to keep things interesting. Those people also serve as my trusted curators who help me sort through the massive amounts of information we’re all bombarded with daily.
3. Twitter beats RSS as an efficient alert system for stories I want to read. And it’s starting to divert some business from Google, too, as a tool for sifting through the Web. Much of the news/stories/blog-posts I read is now coming from Twitter.

For those wondering if Facebook is comparable to Twitter as a communications tool, here’s a helpful bit from TwitTip:

Let’s say you go to a wedding or other social gathering where lots of people know each other. The style and tone of communication there will be more like using Facebook; you chat with old friends and acquaintances, mixing and mingling in an intimate manner. In this setting, people tend to feel more relaxed and “in their element”. Conversations are familiar and center on shared experiences and connections.

Now, when you go to a large party or social event where you don’t know most of the people in attendance, you will use a very different style of communication, more like Twitter; you want to meet people and somehow make yourself known, stand out from the crowd, make an impression, self promote and make new connections. Twitter is like getting the podium and not everyone feels comfortable or knows how to stand comfortably in the spotlight.

In fact, almost all of us, when first approaching Twitter, tend to use it to post useless updates like “Going to lunch”, thinking of it as a another tool to communicate with friends, when in fact, it is more like stepping on to a stage, where you are communicating with an audience and quickly find that you need to find a voice and say something useful and interesting or quickly lose the attention of your audience. People refer to Twitter as a mini or micro blogging platform.

For a good list of links and resources relating to Twitter, check out: Sree Sreenivasan – @sreenet, TWITTER: Sree’s Twitter Guide for Newbies & Skeptics.

My Twitter handle: @shc347

“Rats Mob The Upper East Side” (Also the fashion catwalk)

The Wall Street Journal debuted its New York edition today, which featured on its front page the breaking story, “Rats Mob the Upper East Side.” The WSJ reports: “An army of rats is scurrying into apartments, stores and even car engines on a stretch of the Upper East Side.”

Meanwhile, over on Vanity Fair, they may have unwittingly proposed a solution:

From Billy Reid's Fall 2010 Collection (Yes, that's rat fur they're wearing)

Here are some choice quotes from the VF piece:

“I love the masculinity of it. It’s sort of the bad-ass fur,” [Designer Billy] Reid explains.

Locals have explored other uses for nutria [rat] pelts, including pillows and teddy bears.

“It makes a great blanket,” says Edmond Mouton, biologist and program manager at the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. His department’s Web site includes a recipe for “stuffed nutria hindquarters” that serves 15.

I don’t know what PETA will have to say about this. But I can’t imagine the rich fashionistas of the Upper East Side caring. Because if there’s one organization that’s persona non grata on the Upper East Side — where there’s probably more fur per capita than anywhere else — it’s PETA.