Posts Tagged ‘NYT’
You have to wonder just why the NYT is publishing a story out there trying to insinuate that blogging and bloggers are a dying breed. After reading their article – what it appears to me is that they were only concentrating on the teenie bopper bloggers and how they are losing interest. That doesn’t surprise me at all – anyone else out here have any teenagers? Have you ever known any teenagers to keep an attention span of anything they do for more than a minute or so? LOL
So – evidence of the death of blogs is due to the fact that the youth are turning more to facebook and twitter -
Blogs were once the outlet of choice for people who wanted to express themselves online. But with the rise of sites like Facebook and Twitter, they are losing their allure for many people — particularly the younger generation.
As I was reading through the rest of the article – I couldn’t find anywhere where they mentioned that as social networks such as the above have evolved – so have blogger applications that take advantage of these social networks. I have my blog connected to both Facebook and Twitter. Whenever I put up a new post it automatically places a link on both of those networks. It seems to me what this so-called tech writer for the NYT is missing is the fact that perhaps those teeny boppers haven’t realized they can still reach larger audiences through these applications. I also have blogging applications on my smart-phone so that I can blog, tweet, and update status whenever and wherever I’m at.
I’m not entirely sure how this writer can say that bloggers and blogging is waning – he contradicts himself:
The Internet and American Life Project at the Pew Research Center found that from 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. 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.
and then he writes this:
While the younger generation is losing interest in blogging, people approaching middle age and older are sticking with it. 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 – we have a demographic that spans a 15 year age range dropping 2% – but we see a demographic that spans 39 years with 6, 5, and 2% increases respectively. How is that evidence that blogging is waning? What that tells me is that the more serious, more mature bloggers are sticking with it and moving with the technology.
I think the NYT has a different motive for publishing this article – I think they’re hoping to shape the future of blogging and get more people to move away from blogging since it is affecting their business. In 2009 overall newspaper readership declined by 10% and the NYT readership declined by 7.3%. In 2010 overall circulation declined by another 9% and the New York Times reported another 3.6% decline.
So – one has to ask – what is the real motive behind this article?
Okay – not really to the New York Times itself – but – to one individual in particular – Adam Nagourney. You might be asking yourself – WTF is wrong with you..and why him? Well, Mr. Nagourney is a political journalist. He e-mailed me last night in response to a post. I responded back to him. Within minutes – he again responded. We had a pretty decent little chat of no particular significance that would be worth mentioning here. However, I have read his columns in the past and have seen him reporting on various news shows on T.V. Despite how biased the NYT is – Mr. Nagourney remains steadfast in keeping his journalistic integrity and reports evenly and fairly from both sides of an issue. In other words, he remains neutral in his reporting as journalists should. So – I just wanted to give a public prop to Mr. Nagourney and encourage my readers to read his columns and the NYT The Caucus Blog where he is a contributor.
Next – with everything that was going on today – I failed to reveal my BoBo of The Week Award – well – come back tomorrow – it’s gonna be a doozy. H/T to Greg over at 454Monte.com for alerting me to it. This guy needs a thorough ass-kicking!
Also – just a reminder for my fellow bloggers – The next edition of The BoBo Carnival of Politics runs on Sunday. The deadline for submissions is tomorrow night (Saturday, 10/4/08) at 10:00pm Eastern. If you haven’t submitted your article – do it now. You can either click the link up there at the top left titled BoBo Carnival – or just follow one of the links in this paragraph.
Lastly – I want to alert you all to a couple articles that was sent to me:
..and this one also from Humbled Infidel – 1999 NYT Article “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending” this is just proof for those naysayers that are trying to pin the blame of this economic mess on the Bush administration.
This one from Vulcan’s Hammer – How Democrats protected Fannie and Freddie more commentary on just how we got in this mess – and it isn’t GWB’s fault!
And – in an e-mail sent to me from Chris Blake of Cmblake6′s Weblog :
Obama Hit by “Shock and Awe” Can Be Defeated.
Dear Fellow American:
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you make not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
Help the National Republican Trust PAC tell the truth about Obama – Go Here Now
Dangerous Economic Plan
And then there are Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.
But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.