May 24, 2005

Like plain old celeb-rity wasn't bad enough


The old rule of thumb holds true: on those rare instances when Glenn Reynolds and I share an opinion, it's the only one worth having. Are we destined for disappointment? Well, as TMBG once said, If it weren't for disappointment, I wouldn't have any appointments at all. As you no doubt know, Blogebrity is insisting that Blogebrity is not a parody (though it is a stunt). The good news is that if that's true, Blogebrity is doomed.

First off, though, let me say that while the magazine idea is preposterous, at first blush, the notion of a blog about bloggers (to the extent that all blogs aren't already this) isn't bad. If done right, it could be Gawkerist on a bigger scale.

But it's precisely the bigger scale that is Blogebrity's downfall, and a quick look at The List shows why. When you talk about A-list celebrities (as opposed to blogebrities), everyone knows who you mean. You may quibble as to exactly who should be A or B list, but let me put it this way: I doubt there's a single A-list celebrity -- someone everyone would agree is A-list -- that you or I have never heard of. That's because the pool of famous people is finite and generalized. So if a celebrity is on the A-list, odds are anyone who is interested in celebrity will want to read about them in a magazine now and then.

But the pool of bloggers is infinite and nichified. I read a lot of blogs, but at a glance, I'd say that I've never heard of a third to a half of Blogebrity's A-list, and probably two-thirds of its B-list. And what's more, I don't particularly care to find out about them. This is not to denigrate them at all, just to point out the problem that Blogebrity will have in launching a publication that will be of interest even to its target audience. These people may get plenty of traffic, and even TV spots or Op-Ed pieces, but if I don't read their blogs, why should I want to read a magazine about them? And if I do read their blogs, what else could I possibly want to know? Meanwhile, there are plenty of great, popular blogs I do read that are not on even the C-list. Again, this is not about questioning Blogebrity's judgment, but merely to say that the nature of blogs -- there are so many of them, and everyone is interested in their own little circle of them -- means that a general-interest round up is almost by definition impossible.

Although Blogebrity (and please, give us a name we can call you without having to repeat that awful word) won't explain how its lists are compiled, it seems clear that it's about individual people, not their blogs. So, for instance, Elizabeth is an A-lister because she once upon a time wrote a blog that everyone read, even though now she writes a blog that no one reads. (Sorry gals, but you know your stats as well as I do. I happen to really like FishbowlNY, but as anyone who has ever gotten a link from them will tell you, there's no traffic going in or out). A-lister Choire doesn't even have anythihng to do with blogs anymore. As for me, well, why do I belong on the B-list? There are C-listers who get more traffic than me and A-listers who get less. If it's not about traffic, what is it about? Surely not quality of posts in my case, as anyone who has been here for the last few weeks could tell you. And, to repeat myself, if you already read my blog, what could you possibly want to know about me as a blogger that you don't already?

If Blogebrity insists on keeping this farce going even after it has (perhaps deservedly) won its prize, it should at least drop the magazine format and just concentrate on being a snarky meta-blog about the blogosphere. It's a long shot, but it's the least bad choice. Unfortunately, the Blogebrity blog so far seems to be not about blogs in general, but about Blogebrity itself. In other words, it's just like every other blog out there.

Posted by Daniel Radosh


What a mad, sad, and wonderfully typical product of nowadays. Just saying the name should be enough to evoke long guffaws and - if you are given to dreary respones - to a bit of head-shaking.

(Ha, that's funny. When someone sent me the link my very first thought was "Some sucker thinks I should be on the same list as Radosh and TMFTML? Awesome.")

I glanced over the lists and I think they're more or less random, meant to incite indignance or bravado and therefore links. The only way the first blogger ever found it was by checking his/her referrers.
The funny brilliant thing about that site is that it depends entirely upon the narcissism of bloggers, and to paraphrase Mencken: "Nobody ever went broke overestimating the narcissism of bloggers." Someday our cars will run on it, and there will be peace in our time. Amen.

Well, bloggers are all going broke, of course, but your metaphorical point holds -- which is indeed what makes Blogebrity funny/brilliant -- if it's a joke. (I also quite like the "Isn't it about time" tagline), The blogger linkbait lists have been done before of course, with greater nuance, as in the whole ecosystm thing from a few years ago.

I say it's Krucoff. He's Gawkerist, himself and this. He's just appropriating his own critique at Gawkerist to create a meta meta blogger linkfarm. I think he's also the person driving around town running everyone down so to create stories for his crime blog.

You better watch your kvetchin', Radosh, or you'll find yourself mysteriously moved to the "C" list tomorrow morning, and you'll have to clear your schedule for an all-day cry.

Actually, life in the C-list is quite pleasant. There's a lot less pressure than the rough-and-tumble B-list world.

What letter comes after Z?

You are retarded, although dead-on about the no traffice from fishbowl.

c-list, holla!

Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2