Cathy Seipp vs. L.A. Times Writer on Blogging:

Check the original article and Cathy's response. Here's an excerpt from Cathy's item:

An article called "Blogging L.A." included neither the much-hyped L.A.-based commercial blogging enterprises that began this year (the Huffington Post and Pajamas Media, of which I'm a member), nor any of the major L.A. blogs (Kausfiles, the Volokh Conspiracy, Little Green Footballs, et al) except L.A. Observed and Defamer, and then only in passing.

Instead, Times readers were told about tiny, diary-style L.A. blogs, the kind that defined the medium about five years ago. You'd also have no idea that since the post-Sept. 11 explosion of political blogs, L.A. has been the capital of the blogosphere. But The Times -- which has a sorry tradition of ignoring trends in its own backyard -- has been missing that story from its beginning. . . .

How obscure are the blogs discussed in Calendar Weekend? The story opened with one that gets just 15 daily visits, and closed with another that no longer exists. What kind of L.A. blogs did these upstage? Just as one example, Little Green Footballs, which played a major role exposing CBS' National Guard memos story as a hoax last year, gets at least 50,000 hits a day. A cynic might suspect that The Times tries to make blogs seem as boring and inconsequential as possible, in order to staunch the flow of readers and advertisers from newspapers to the Internet. . . .

Note that headlines for articles are chosen by the newspaper, not by the author, so Cathy should get neither credit nor responsibility for the headline to her piece, which is "Where, you overpaid fools, was Little Green Footballs?"

anonymous coward:
As far as "tiny, diary-style...blogs, the kind that defined the medium about five years ago," they still define the medium for most. Seipp reads political blogs and thinks they are terribly important. Well, good for her, but political blogging is not the dominant form of blogging, nor are the mentioned political blogs particularly concerned with the city of LA, which the rather dull LAT piece was about.

(Frankly, I think LGF and Huffington and Drudge and Kaus should be wiped from the intarnets.)
12.12.2005 1:09pm
well, that's mighty tolerant of you, nony.

Are you at least willing to admit that 50,000 is bigger than both 15 and 0?
12.12.2005 1:37pm
Barbara Skolaut (mail):
"Frankly, I think LGF and Huffington and Drudge and Kaus should be wiped from the intarnets."

But not Kos and the Democratic Underground? Quelle surprise.

But then perhaps that's why you call it the inTARnets (there's only one that I'm aware of, BTW) - sites like theirs use the internet to TAR conservatives and anyone else who doesn't fit their (God-knows-which-world-'cause-it-ain't-this-one) world view.

I can certainly see why you wish to remain anonymous coward.

Also, what Cabbage said.

Barbara Skolaut
12.12.2005 1:54pm
Please, don't call me Frank.

I think that "intarnets" is what GWB says. IOW, it's a joke.

12.12.2005 1:59pm
HoCo Hayduke (mail) (www):
I really don't understand the fuss being made over this article. To me, it sounds like Cathy's got a barrel full of sour grapes instead of a legitimate gripe.

So the Times wrote a story, presumably for a local auidence, about local blogs covering local issues and failed to mention locally-produced blogs covering national issues? Big deal. Finding a blog to solidify your pro- or anti-Bush stance is easy. Try finding one that talks about local school boards, property taxes, good local restaraunts, or some other topic that actually has an impact on your daily life. If anything, the Times was doing a service in unearthing these out-of-the-mainstream blogs.

We've already got millions of people everyday chiming in with their two cents on all the important national issues, and I'd say in many states, you probably have thousands of people doing the same. However, on the community level, this dialogue is missing, and locally-focused blogs can easily fill this need, especially in places where technology is prevelant, like California and Maryland (where I run a local blog).

Apparently, Cathy doesn't see things the same way. In her view, only those blogs occupying the already-crowded national market and read by thousands of people daily count for anything. Isn't this pro-establishment attitude a primary focus of the blogosphere's contempt toward Old Media?
12.12.2005 2:14pm
Larry The Other (mail):
A low comment count for a nearly non-existent newspaper. How appropriate. Although I live in San Diego and have access to the printed LAT, I get most of my news online. The LAT, like the NYT, Phil'a Enquirer, Wash. Post and Chi Tribune, requires a reader to register just to see the front page, let alone read an article. I hold that if web surfers are registered, only criminals will have web surfers. As far as I'm concerned, these papers don't exist, because I can't see them in print or online. When the LAT stops feeding the newsracks in SD, it too will go poof like the others.
12.12.2005 3:41pm
I think Cathy needs to read about the Long Tail. Yes, there are a few huge blogs like LGF and our favorite Conspiracy that get thousands of hits daily. But if you add up all the thousands of small blogs with a dozen or two hits daily, you get an even larger total. So most of the blog-viewing in this world is on small individual blogs on LiveJournal, MySpace, and Blogger.
12.12.2005 7:17pm