Interesting, I will check out that interview.

I would think the main reason the NTY came out looking clueless in the resulting coverage is that media outlets love to bash/embarrass/diminish their competition, especially when it’s The Old Grey Lady. In fact, I would argue this became news only because it involved a news outlet. Kind of the same with Dan Rather – the media was interested in Dan Rather, 60 Minutes and a controversy involving the president, and it was MSM reporting of what the bloggers were on about that was the fatal blow. I think that if Charles Johnson hand-delivered his replicas of the forged documents directly to the offices of The Washington Post, or even the Media Research Centre, instead of putting it online, the end result would have been the same.

When it comes to situations like Dell and Jeff Jarvis, the blogosphere can buzz about it for weeks on end, but it becomes news when a publication like Business Week reports on it. Same for the Kryptonite lock issue – it became news when (guess who?) The New York Times reported on it and AP picked it up. Same deal with Jordan at CNN.

Don’t get me wrong, I am playing devil’s advocate and I’m not saying that the bloggers have no influence. The media have become very lazy and under-funded, and the ‘sphere is an easy and cheap resource for leads, juicy gossip, rent-a-quotes and the like. I think the media’s increasing focus on celebrity news and fluff (a la Brangelina and Tom-Kat) is driving people with a thirst for information about important topics online. There they find a host of wanna-be journalists who have strong feelings about a specific topic or ideology, and no editor standing over their shoulder asking for balance or even the semblance of objectivity. That kind of dialogue speaks to people who share that world view in a way no mainstream outlet ever could (or should, in my mind). I’m just saying that the media are still the gatekeepers of mainstream consciousness. Much of the world has yet to go online, but you’ll find a TV just about anywhere.

- M.E.

What GM got was a TON of press! (Do a Nexis search.) GM came out looking great; the New York Times came across looking clueless in most of the coverage.

Neville and I interviewed Michael Wiley at GM and he made their moderation policy clear: Everything is fair game unless it has four-letter words; that policy is stated in its comment section. If the language is clean, the comment goes up. (Read through some comments; you’ll see plenty of critical and negative ones.)

As for whether bloggers wield influence, you’d have to ask Dell about Jeff Jarvis’s influence. Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, and Trent Lott probably have some opinions about blogger influence, as do the good folks over at Kryptonite (the bicycle lock division of Ingersoll Rand). Bloggers pretty much put PriceRite Photo out of business after ONE blogger posted his horrific experience with them. There are plenty more examples.

Have you read “The Cluetrain Manifesto?” It was ahead of its time when it posited that “Markets are conversations,” but it’s certainly true now. I’d also highly recommend “Naked Conversations.”

/shel

Too true – there’s not much that can be done about the clutter and hot air; the web is an open environment, for better or for worse. But I think it’s going too far to say that control has moved to individuals and communities if, by control, you mean influence. I think that’s over-stating the real world weight of what happens in the blogosphere. (I just know you’ll have an example to counter that!)

Also agree that the way GM used FYI to leap-frog the letters editor at the NYT is interesting, but what did they gain? They got their message out to people who already read the blog and likely support GM in one way or another, so they are kind of preaching to the converted. I’m sure the original letter still had a much bigger reach. Overalll, the GM-generated content on FYI and Fastlane is, in my opinion, what you would expect – positive messages about GM and rebuttals to not-so-positive messages. The skeptic in me wonders how they choose to moderate the comments – I would think they’d let in enough negative comments to seem open to critique, or let in comments which lead them to questions they’ve been looking to answer in public, but leaving out anything too controversial or negative. And maybe that’s just best practice for corporate blogging?

Ok, so these girls aren’t in the corporate world yet, but they will be soon. A number of them head to college this fall. They will be going into the business world already having been using social media to solve problems and breach divides. It will be interesting to watch their evolution.

Of course, the blogs of people who have nothing to say won’t get read!

As to corporate blogs, I’ll disagree with you. Take a look at General Motors’ blogs, Fastlane and FYI. On Fastlane, Bob Lutz and his team engage in frank conversation with people who are passionate about cars, providing unfiltered feedback. Lutz says it’s the best intelligence he’s ever seen, and he has become a prolific and enthusiastsic blogger. But the new FYI blog is the one that really intrigues me. Read this post and its follow-up comments, then let’s talk about the uses of corporate blogs!

http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2006/06/the_ban_on_rubbish_in_the_new_1.html

In a nutshell, The New York Times went overboard in attempting to control what GM put in a letter to the editor designed to refute the assertions made by a Times columnist. Rather than acquiesce, GM — in a remarkable display of transparency — went straight to the public, bypassing the media, and (and this is the crucial part that distinguishes what they did from a website) engaging their audience. Some comments reflect additional research undertaken by the audience to bolster GM’s viewpoint. Try that with a static website!

I think your point about putting a megaphone in everyone’s hands is central to my problem with blogs. Not everyone needs a megaphone, not everyone knows how to use one, and not everyone has something to say that deserves to be broadcast at high volume.

I think the ease of publishing has created an incredible amount of hot air and clutter. It’s not much of a problem when it comes to personal blogs about your dog, your love life, your home renovation – those are basically personal websites on steroids, meant primarily for family and friends. But now that the business bloggers have begun to run amok, I feel the ’sphere is creating lots of self-professed experts for whom a few comments on their blog has become tantamount to publishing a bestseller. Worst still, lazy (or over-stretched) journos are increasingly taking these digital ramblings at face-value, making news out of molehills.

I also acknowledge your point about individuals or small groups being the distinctive point of difference between blogs and message boards. I agree, and this is why the idea of “corporate blogs” irks me. Unless a company is a one-man band, or unless the blog is actually written by a central figure in the organization so aligned with the corporate brand as to embody it, then it’s just a website posing as a blog. And really, what sensible company is going to “get real” in public and invite comment (which, on the Internet, tends to be a euphemism for abuse)?

There may indeed be useful and meaningful ways for large organizations to use blogs and other social media tools, and they certainly need to know how to be aware of what’s being said about them, but blind bandwagon-jumping is rife, encouraged by those hoping to hype their way to the bank. At the end of the day, it’s just another tool in the toolbox, I think. Like a buzz saw – useful in the hands of someone who knows what they’re doing, annoying and potentially harmful in the hands of someone who doesn’t.

To be honest, I think blogging has lowered the threshold a bit too much. Just because one is able to have their say, doesn’t mean what they have to say has any merit. In fact, as you mentioned, the roots of blogging are firmly in geek land and the whole ethos still has a Revenge of the Nerds feel about it. For example, it makes me howl to read discussion on the “rules” for blogging. That strikes me as supremely silly, like trying to forge rules for the use of pen and paper.

Thanks for your comment, and thanks for making the point about female bloggers – that does get overlooked I think. (Typical, huh?)