As I mentioned in responding to a meme recently, a year ago I thought blogging was stupid. I have completely changed my mind about that. Part of the reason for the evolution was this blog (I know you'll be tempted write some self deprecating response to that statement). I don't think newspapers are stupid either, but they sure do some dumb things... i.e. the New York times charging for web access to some of its articles, as well as the "web blog" foolishness cited in your post.

I'm a little insulted by the "web blog" ad. The careless nature of the mistake makes it seem as if the ad was created in a spirit of dismissiveness. I believe it's a big, big mistake to dismiss the blogging phenomenon, especially coming as it does during the advent of so much open source media (and the attendant strife over that media, specifically with regard to file sharing). It's all more a wave to ride than a rebellion to crush.

I'm not sure that newspapers per se are an anachronism, but it's hard not to think that when one comes along sounding like a shrill old grandparent complaining about the way it used to be.

I know you'll be tempted write some self deprecating response...

Why, I wouldn't even know how to begin to write something like that. ;-)

When I posted this, I worried that perhaps I was being too sensitive. Your reaction puts those worries to rest.

I'd be interested in knowing whether this ad was part of a generic "press kit" that was sent out to all newspapers in this particular group. I'm not sure which would be worse...to find out it's just a local perception (the folks I know at the paper are more tuned-in than that, or so I thought), or that it came from a source with wider coverage and influence. And, if the latter, how much latitude did the local editors have over the way it ran?

But, this line of discussion brings us perilously close to attributing some sort of cosmic relevance to what I write (this is the self-deprecating part, in case I'm being overly subtle). My weak defense of blogging in general should in no way be construed as an argument that the Gazette's honor is somehow soiled by this ad.

I think there is some sort of cosmic relevance to what you (and the entire b'sphere) write(s). It's not in the content (or the content-free-ness, as it were), it's the simple fact that you are writing and others are commenting, like you mentioned in your post. You just don't get that kind of global conversation in a newspaper. Or rather, you don't get it in "real time" like you do on the web.

I think newspapers have a place but that place is evolving, as is the place of blogs. I think there's room for traditional and web-based print, so long as they both spend time figuring out their audience and creating for them.

Wow! That was... serious. I should probably go to bed now. My keyboard is emitting as much smoke as my ears at this point.

Well, my point was just that I don't have a dog in this hunt, other than from a conceptual perspective. While I'm quick to defend the blogosphere from mischaracterization, I'm rather sanguine about how that flows down to the level of the Gazette.

But you raise an interesting point about bloggers "figuring out their audience and creating content for them." Do you make a conscious decision about that each time you post something? Do you know your audience well enough to fashion content you think they want to read? Just curious...

Well, I do spend time thinking about what I'm going to write about. I do edit quite a bit too. But I don't really create posts to satisfy something I think my (shockingly small) readership wants to read. I don't pretend to know what you all do or don't like.

I probably should have said "offer to" instead of "create for." In a medium like this one, and this very post is a decent example, thoughts are organic and can be clarified or amended very quickly. It almost has the feeling of conversation. A print newspaper or magazine (or book) doesn't have that. I would probably write differently for a newspaper than I would for my blog, or for any electronic medium that allowed virtual conversation. It has something to do with the reasoning behind occaisonally disallowing comments on a post. There's nothing wrong with doing that, IMO. It simply means that the writer is offering more of an editorial or article, not opening him/herself to a conversation.

At least, that's what I thought I meant.

I don't pretend to know what you all do or don't like.

Really. I think you're selling yourself short.

You can honestly say that when you post something that generates, say, a dozen or so complimentary comments, that doesn't weigh in the back of your mind the next time you consider the blogworthiness of a subject? And the reverse...if you post on a particular subject and it generates absolutely no reaction -- do you stop and think about the desirability of posting again on that subject the next time you encounter it?

Again, just curious... ;-)

The editorial control over those printed letters and the absence of real-time dialog makes them far from ideal.

I heard the editorial page editor of the NYT give the figure of 1,200 letters a day(!) arrive at the NYT's editorial page. Granted, most newspapers don't get nearly that number, but the percentage of letters that get printed hovers around 30 percent. Add to that the fact that you're usually limited in length (150 words at NYT, 250 at WaPo, for instance) and the analogy shudders and crumbles under its own ponderous weight.

Aside: Web Blogs = News Spapers :-)

Re: comments and what they reveal about likes and dislikes...

The simple fact that I have picked up some regular readers over the months is highly significant feedback for me. As I mentioned on your blogging question post, if that number suddenly went to zero, I'd definitely wonder what happened.

I most certainly am gratified by complimentary comments on stuff I write, and I'm not about to say that the total absence of comments never influences my choice of what to write, but I don't think I know enough yet about this particular medium to claim any significant knowledge about what will be appealing to those regular readers before I write a post. That's not modesty, that's just an admission that I feel like a novice, a happy one, but a novice nonetheless.

I read excellent posts all the time that I don't comment on. Happens a lot here at the Gazette in fact (though because I leave so many stinkin' comments here you might have a hard time believing it). Just because I don't comment doesn't mean I don't like what I read. I assume that's true of at least some of the regulars over at my place as well. (Two people in particular have told me in person that this is in fact, the case. I had no idea they were even reading my blog!).

For what it's worth, and speaking only for myself, I think I might at least try to resist the temptation to write something simply for the sake of generating comments, complimentary or otherwise.

This has been a fun conversation. I'm very curious to see where you go with your "questions for bloggers" post as it has obvious ties to the discussion on this post. So now that I've said that, I hope you were planning on going somewhere with that post.

As Kip would say, "Peace out."

Eric,
As always, your keen observations are right on and as is the case on a less frequent (yet not infrequent) basis, they can sting.
The house ad you write about was composed by the Newspaper Association of America, an industry organization which serves newspapers across the country. The Reporter-Telegram has pulled the ad not only because of its Web Blog reference which, sorry to say, was not caught nearly as early as it should have been, but because contextually, it contains verbiage that some bloggers may take issue with, you being a case in point. ;)
At MyWestTexas.com, it has been our hope to have a productive, congenial relationship with local bloggers, not a contentious one, and I think for the most part we are accomplishing that.
As always, we appreciate being watched. Bloggers are making the newspaper industry more watchful of itself.
And congratulations, your catch will likely have a direct impact on a national ad campaign.

Jimmy P.
Web Blogger and Online Editor

Jimmy, sorry about the sting, but it sorta comes with the Fire Ant territory, you know?

If this had been any old run-of-the-mill clueless newspaper (there's one to the west of us a few miles that comes to mind), it wouldn't have been such a big deal. But, I expect better things from you guys for the precise reasons you describe.

I suspected this ad was part of a national package. While that doesn't let anyone off the hook from an editorial vetting perspective, it's less damning than if it had been an in-house production.

You and Stewart continue to do an overall excellent job of building and maintaining a productive relationship with local bloggers and blogging in general. Expectation of a higher standard of performance is a natural outgrowth. I hope you'll hold us equally accountable.

For what it's worth, and speaking only for myself, I think I might at least try to resist the temptation to write something simply for the sake of generating comments, complimentary or otherwise.

Jim, my question wasn't intended to suggest that posting merely to generate comments is a desirable strategy for blogging. As you accurately point out, not all comments are edifying, and not all valued readers leave comments. (You are the exception in both cases. ;-) Posting for comments has the potential of causing one to play to the lowest common denominator (whatever that means), and I think one ends up losing one's "natural voice."

For further reference, a post on The Thinklings blog about the color of Gatorade has generated more than 700 comments thus far. One of my most commented posts involved the challenges of folding a fitted sheet. You're free to draw your own conclusions.

Eric,
Though I would never pretend to speak for the entire newspaper, I suspect what happened was that the ad was handled by someone locally who electronically pasted it up, someone whose interests lie elsewhere other than blogging and were therefore unfamiliar with the term. Happens.
But make no mistake ... you guys are good at what you do. If you worked at a major corporation, you'd be in quality control. ;/
Striving to be a cut above ... jp

@ Jimmy. Striving to be a cut above ... you succeed in my book.

Eric,

I didn't mean to imply that you meant to imply.... whatever. I was just exploring my feelings on the matter since you're question was very good, and one I really hadn't thought about before, hence the post at the other end of the trackback I set, which I believe you've seen already.

Oh, and I commented on that Thinklings post. I laughed myself silly reading that (it's definitely yellow, by the way)! Now I guess I'd better go find that fitted sheet post and see what I've been missing. :->

Ouch. I found that fitted sheet post. My sides are hurting.

"Eurasian's" comments are unbelievably funny.

"Eurasian's" comments are unbelievably funny.

I'm glad you think so. I'll start directing him to your blog. I'm running out of server space, myself. ;-)