<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is blogging dead?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://romansturgis.com/2008/11/09/is-blogging-dead/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://romansturgis.com/2008/11/09/is-blogging-dead/</link>
	<description>Fiction podcasts and my blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 02:25:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Sligh</title>
		<link>http://romansturgis.com/2008/11/09/is-blogging-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Sligh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://romansturgis.com/?p=164#comment-53</guid>
		<description>Roman,

As, of course, with any broad declarative statement, &quot;Is blogging dead?&quot; is pretty easy to take issue with. No, of course not, in a lot of important ways.

But I&#039;m more interested in your observation that Facebook has taken the place of a lot of liveblog-type online journals, and the quotation from Rough Type: &quot;Today, what blogs have in common is mainly just the underlying technology - the &quot;publishing platform&quot; - and that makes it difficult to talk meaningfully about a &quot;blogosphere.&quot;

And from the Economist: &quot;Gone, in other words, is any sense that blogging as a technology is revolutionary, subversive or otherwise exalted, and this upsets some of its pioneers. Confirmed, however, is the idea that blogging is useful and versatile.&quot;

This, to me, seems more like it. Format can&#039;t substitute for content forever. At this point, the technology is a means to different ends. It&#039;s worth noting that the &quot;blogosphere&quot; the articles seem to be talking about - the Top 100, the big-media blogs - isn&#039;t the &quot;blogosphere&quot; (God, what an ugly word) that I live in. I read blogs with readerships far in excess of even an extended network of friends &amp; casual acquaintances that could never touch the readership of, oh I don&#039;t know, Gawker - but that discourse is what I appreciate my slice of the 1.5 million remainder for. 

I don&#039;t know whether, in the end, blogs are just an unfiltered time suck - something to distract from more finished writing or more tangible miniature publications (blogs may be cheaper, easier, &amp; more effective than a &#039;zine, but isn&#039;t there something nice about how handmade it is?) - but what I do think is that, as the articles say, it makes less and less sense to talk about what &quot;blogs&quot; are in any meaningful way. It&#039;s like talking about what &quot;filmstock&quot; is, or talking about printed matter as though self-help guides, legal briefs, company mission statements, memoirs, reportage, novels &amp; poetry were all the same medium because they happened to get printed up.

I have to hop the bus back to the capital, but I&#039;m going to post some links to blogs that I like to keep up with in the comments. And I wish there was a better word than this anagram for &quot;glob&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roman,</p>
<p>As, of course, with any broad declarative statement, &#8220;Is blogging dead?&#8221; is pretty easy to take issue with. No, of course not, in a lot of important ways.</p>
<p>But I&#8217;m more interested in your observation that Facebook has taken the place of a lot of liveblog-type online journals, and the quotation from Rough Type: &#8220;Today, what blogs have in common is mainly just the underlying technology &#8211; the &#8220;publishing platform&#8221; &#8211; and that makes it difficult to talk meaningfully about a &#8220;blogosphere.&#8221;</p>
<p>And from the Economist: &#8220;Gone, in other words, is any sense that blogging as a technology is revolutionary, subversive or otherwise exalted, and this upsets some of its pioneers. Confirmed, however, is the idea that blogging is useful and versatile.&#8221;</p>
<p>This, to me, seems more like it. Format can&#8217;t substitute for content forever. At this point, the technology is a means to different ends. It&#8217;s worth noting that the &#8220;blogosphere&#8221; the articles seem to be talking about &#8211; the Top 100, the big-media blogs &#8211; isn&#8217;t the &#8220;blogosphere&#8221; (God, what an ugly word) that I live in. I read blogs with readerships far in excess of even an extended network of friends &amp; casual acquaintances that could never touch the readership of, oh I don&#8217;t know, Gawker &#8211; but that discourse is what I appreciate my slice of the 1.5 million remainder for. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know whether, in the end, blogs are just an unfiltered time suck &#8211; something to distract from more finished writing or more tangible miniature publications (blogs may be cheaper, easier, &amp; more effective than a &#8216;zine, but isn&#8217;t there something nice about how handmade it is?) &#8211; but what I do think is that, as the articles say, it makes less and less sense to talk about what &#8220;blogs&#8221; are in any meaningful way. It&#8217;s like talking about what &#8220;filmstock&#8221; is, or talking about printed matter as though self-help guides, legal briefs, company mission statements, memoirs, reportage, novels &amp; poetry were all the same medium because they happened to get printed up.</p>
<p>I have to hop the bus back to the capital, but I&#8217;m going to post some links to blogs that I like to keep up with in the comments. And I wish there was a better word than this anagram for &#8220;glob&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

