So this weekend the NYT found some high school senior who stopped blogging because nobody read his shitty, shitty blog, and BOOM! BANG! That’s a news story, amirite?
“I don’t use my blog anymore,” said Mr. McDonald, who lives in San Francisco. “All the people I’m trying to reach are on Facebook.”
First of all, “Mr.” McDonald (WTF? We give honorifics to high school students now?), you can’t put your Facebook profile on your resume. (HELLLLOO, New York Magazine! You haven’t gotten back to me yet! Don’t worry, though, I am STILL AVAILABLE!) Second of all, unless you are stupid, the only people who can read your Facebook posts are your “friends” (HELLLLOO, Facebook friends! Of course we are “friends” in real life!), which rather artificially limits your audience. Third of all, the Times story casts what any thinking person would call “very good news for humanity” as some sort of death knell for our wonderful medium:
[F]rom 2006 to 2009, blogging among children ages 12 to 17 fell by half; now 14 percent of children those ages who use the Internet have blogs.
This is a good thing, New York Times. It is G-O-O-D! It means that there are HALF AS MANY Bieber fan sites today than there would have been if he had been created in 2006! Can we not acknowledge that half as many tween Bieber blogs is excellent news for our country? Would that be unobjective? I do not believe it would!
Anyway, among the people who matter (i.e., voters, alcoholics), blogging hasn’t really died at all, as the Times kinda-sorta-reluctantly admits:
Among 18-to-33-year-olds, the project said in a report last year, blogging dropped two percentage points in 2010 from two years earlier
Among 34-to-45-year-olds who use the Internet, the percentage who blog increased six points, to 16 percent, in 2010 from two years earlier, the Pew survey found. Blogging by 46-to-55-year-olds increased five percentage points, to 11 percent, while blogging among 65-to-73-year-olds rose two percentage points, to 8 percent.
So, smarter people are blogging more, Bieber fans are blogging less, and the Times has the gumption to call its story “Blogs Wane as the Young Drift to Sites Like Twitter“?!? Jesus Christ, New York Times. The story SHOULD be called “BLOGS FLOURISH AS TEENAGERS GET DISTRACTED BY SOMETHING ELSE ON THE INTERNET!”
This is why newspapers are dying.
(Full disclosure: I have a blog.)
(h/t @on_the_media) (via)