About a year ago, I first posted on the NYT’s blogging efforts (MSM Blogging Review: NYT Starts Blogging too).
Since that time, the New York Times’ blogweeds* have proliferated in number. As of this morning, the Times now has thirty — 30! — blogs.
Compare that with the WSJ’s "mere" nine blogs (Washington Wire, Law Blog, MarketBeat, Wealth Report, Informed Reader, The Juggle, Health Blog, Tax Blog, Deal Journal). We first posted on the WSJ’s blogging efforts around the same time.
Nine is quite a few, but thirty?! That’s a helluvalot of blogs for a mainstream media outlet. And, this number doesn’t include the blogs the Times has shuttered – like their real estate blog WalkThrough, which was actually pretty good.
Gee, I wonder if the print media world is a tad nervous?
Some of these blogweeds are extensions of the columns done by regular contributors: Times’ chief financial correspondent, Floyd Norris, on the High and Low of Finance; David Pogue covers Technology; Andrew Ross Sorkin edits news on M&A, I.P.O.’s, and VC stuff; Eric Asimov discusses wine; Food critic Frank Bruni reports on restaurants. Pretty standard issue stuff.
Then there is this new slice of what can only be described as "celebrity blogging" — Dick Cavett on television (Talk Show), Andy Kessler on business and technology (Wall Street Wired). I’ll bet more celeb blogs will be popping up soon on the Times site.
Of all the Times’ blogs, Cavett seems to have burst out of the gate the fastest; His first post in February elicited 768 comments so far, and most of his posts have comments numbering in the 100s . . .
Although Cavett’s sparse output — 9 posts from February til April — his work is not really blogging; occasional feature writing in a blogging format is a better description for it.
"Blogweed" is my term for the tendency to add blogs, using quantity as a growth mechanism for page views. Just as weedy plants
have naturally evolved to colonize disturbed environments, so too do Blogweeds follow a parallel evolutionary path, evolving to
colonize disturbed media environments . . .
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.