A Bit of Weekend Blogging Nostalgia

Remember this?Kevin Drum Graphics LLC

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Here is Jia Tolentino on the slow death of blogging:

Blogging, that much-maligned pastime, is gradually but surely disappearing from the Internet, and so, consequently, is a lot of online freedom and fun. Before I came to The New Yorker, my only professional writing experience was at blogs, places where a piece like this one, about disappearing blogs, would’ve been either eighty-five words or three thousand, and the lede would have been abrupt and vividly unprofessional, like a friend grabbing you by the collar at a bar.

….Blogs are necessarily idiosyncratic, entirely about sensibility: they can only be run by workhorses who are creative enough to amuse themselves and distinct enough to hook an audience, and they tend to publish like-minded writers, who work more on the principle of personal obsession than pay. The result is editorial latitude to be obscure and silly and particular, but the finances are increasingly hard to sustain; media consumption is controlled these days by centralized tech platforms—Facebook, Twitter—whose algorithms favor what is viral, newsy, reactionary, easily decontextualized, and of general appeal.

Andrew Sullivan is likewise nostalgic:

What was precious about it was its simple integrity: A writer gets to explore her craft and develop her own audience. We weren’t in it for the money or the clicks or the followers. We were in it for the core experience shared between a writer and a reader — and the enormous freedom that removing the editorial gatekeepers unlocked. It was a brief period, but an alive one, and it was largely lost — or abandoned — because of a major failure of nerve on the part of most print media.

….I saw when the goal across the media shifted from simply writing what you believed, however idiosyncratically, to writing more and more and more, so that the sheer volume of traffic might save the economics of web journalism. The fire-hydrant stream of “content” (“writing” was so passé) was so overwhelming that no single editor could manage it, no group of writers could give it character, and no single reader could even begin to read it all. Maybe the web made this inevitable. But it didn’t make the dissipation of so much heritage any less agonizing to watch.

All of this is true, but I’d add something else: for me, the best part of the “golden age” of blogging was interacting with other bloggers. That was a helluva lot of fun. At its worst, sure, it was a dorm room bull session: interesting for the participants, but ultimately pretty shallow. But at its best it was vibrant, real conversation, the exact opposite of the robotic garbage that infests cable news. It was genuine. It changed a few minds here and there. And it persuaded lots of people that ordinary writers could be every bit as good as the high-priced columnists at the Times or the Post—even as half our posts were stimulated by disagreement with one of these guys. (And lest we forget, yes, they were mostly guys back then. Not everything about the golden age was great.)

That’s largely gone. There are plenty of blogs left, but most of them have become as professionalized as the columnists we used to sneer at. That means other bloggers are rarely even linked to these days, let alone argued with. That would be unprofessional!

I am lucky beyond belief. I took to blogging almost instantly. (As my old college roommate once said to me, “I can’t think of a better pairing of man and medium.”) The particular kind of blogging I like is general purpose and singular. That is, I want to be able to write about anything, and I want to do it on my own, not as part of a group. There are very few blogs like that left, but somehow I’ve managed to hang on. It started at the Washington Monthly, where Paul Glastris let me do whatever I wanted for many years, and then continued over the past decade right here, where Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery have rather astoundingly allowed me to keep doing whatever I want.

I suppose it’s pretty obvious that I’m obsessed with blogging. Why else would I spend time writing stuff like this on a beautiful weekend morning? But I do miss the back-and-forth with other bloggers. That’s moved on to Twitter—which I think is better than many people give it credit for—and I don’t want to resurrect it. It would be like building a gothic cathedral in the 21st century: obviously fake, not an organic part of the times. But it was fun while it lasted.

POSTSCRIPT: I should add that reports of blogging’s demise are a little exaggerated. There are still plenty of great blogs around. Obviously what’s great for you and what’s great for me are quite different, and I don’t read as many blogs as I used to. Still, there are several dozen on my more-or-less-daily reading list. Some I read more religiously than others, and some aren’t really blogs at all. I just think of them that way because they’re in my RSS reader. Some post every day, some post about once a month. Some are easy to get to, others are a pain in the ass. Most of them I’ve been following for more than a decade, others I just started last month. In alphabetical order, here they are:

ACA Signups (Charles Gaba)
Alicublog (Roy Edroso)
Andrew Gelman
Atrios
Balloon Juice (John Cole and gang)
Beat the Press (Dean Baker)
Brad DeLong
Charlie’s Diary (Charles Stross)
The Corner
Crooked Timber
Daily Howler (Bob Somerby)
Dan Drezner
Early Warning (Stuart Staniford)
Economist’s View (Mark Thoma)
Election Law Blog (Rick Hasen)
Empty Wheel (Marcy Wheeler)
Hullabaloo (Digby)
The Intercept
Jared Bernstein
Jim Pethokoukis
Jonathan Bernstein
Josh Marshall
MaddowBlog (Steve Benen)
Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok)
Megan McArdle
Michael Hiltzik
Modeled Behavior (Adam Ozimek)
Monkey Cage
Mother Jones
New Republic
New York Magazine
Paul Krugman
Plum Line (Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman)
Political Wire (Taegan Goddard)
Reality-Based Community (Mark Kleiman & Co.)
Real Time Economics
The Switch
The Upshot
Volokh Conspiracy
Vox
Washington Monthly (Nancy LeTourneau and others)
Wonkblog
xpostfactoid (Andrew Sprung)

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate