"News organizations (which means primarily newspapers) generate the data (news stories) without which there would be nothing upon which bloggers could exercise their wit and acumen.

Since newspapers are supported by ad revenue and since blogs cut in to the ad revenue available both as site competitors and as secondary news sources, are bloggers going to wind up killing the goose that lays the golden egg?"

A few points:

1.) News orgs, in many cases, do not generate the data and are themselves secondary sources. Take polls for instance. Take when papers are following up a story that another news org broke. Take when they do a story that's based on a report that a nonprofit puts out. Take essays or "news analysis." Furthermore, blogs are not simply responding to reporting. They're often responding to op-eds (as this blog post does) which aren't generating any primary data. Other times--like newspapers--they're responding to a report from a nonprofit. It's reductionist to see blogging as a craft that basically just reacts to primary reporting.

2.)I want to see data showing that blogs are stealing ad-revenue from newspapers. Newspapers have been in trouble for some time, first of all. Second of all, blogs usually have a link that sends traffic to the places they're commenting on. It's quite possible that blogs actually boost traffic by calling attention to particular stories. In fact if blogs disappeared today, newspapers would still be in trouble, because people would still do what they're doing now--reading the papers online, and not buying them. That development isn't the fault of blogs.

3.)Again, this is coming from a guy who makes his living as a print journalist. I make zilch blogging. I desperately want print to be saved--but diagnosing heart disease as cancer isn't the solution.

Posted at July 25, 2008 7:58 PM in response to Again with the underwear jokes? Ending the blogger hate

Dude, me and every black person I know LOVES Cracker Barrel. It reminds us all of our grandmothers Sunday breakfast. It's all connected brother.

Posted at June 9, 2008 10:05 AM in response to More dumb questions about Barack Obama and black folks

"I know plenty of lefty black intellectuals who've formed great friendships with lefty Jewish intellectuals, much of it based on the commonalities in historical narrative. That would be a pretty apt description of me and one of my best friends."

- this "some of my best friends" approach is also absurd!

Sorry if I wasn't clear about this guys. I cited my own friendship to show that blacks and Jewish thinkers often run in the same circles, and find a mutual affection based on similar narratives. My point was that that affinity is often mistakenly transposed on to the broader rank and file, as Bar Kafka says. That said, I'd agree that it shouldn't be disregarded,

I'd also agree that the "some of my best friends" defense is, indeed, absurd, especially when used to insulate oneself against the charges of bigotry. My goals were simpler. Besides, if I am a bigot, I doubt there's much my Jewish friends can do to save me.

Posted at May 13, 2008 8:57 AM in response to The Negro Sings Of Zionism

Thanks for the response Jim. My apologies. I took your reference to cookie-cutter diversity in higher ed as an implicit reference to Affirmative Action. I also agree that we shouldn't brand certain problems as unworthy of attention. I'm only arguing that we keep them in context and proportion with all the other dimensions of the racial landscape.

As for beginning one of my comments, "as a black person," what can I say? It's who I am. I never thought of it as a part of a problem or part of a solution. It's just who I am. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Ta-Nehisi

Posted at April 2, 2008 3:27 PM in response to Bursting the Elite Bubble