What's the difference between a blog and a mainstream publication?
Arianna Huffington, ex-associate of Bernard Levin and now owner of one of the most popular blogs on Technorati, the Huffington Post, is hiring reporters for the blog, according to the New York Times.
"The site already offers a mix of opinion and breaking news from wire services and other sources, but Ms. Huffington said she wanted to produce reported pieces that were expressed with individual voices.
“That’s the combination you need online,” she said, adding that unlike bloggers, who generally file when they want to, her reporters will have deadlines and regular schedules and will travel for their articles. Also unlike bloggers, Ms. Huffington said, they will be paid." "
The Huffington Post, "a political website for celebrity bloggers", in the New York Times' words, started about 18 months ago and now attracts 2.3 million unique visitors a month. The front page is very busy, full of gossipy headlines along the lines of "Lindsay Lohan ate my hamster" linking to tens of stories, just like an online version of a newspaper or magazine.
And on the other side of the coin, the Pulitzer prize is now open to bloggers. (Don't tell Rachel Cooke.) From the organisation's media release:
"Last year, the board for the first time allowed some online content in all categories. However, with the exception of the Public Service category, the online work was limited to written stories or still images.
Now, an assortment of online elements will be permitted in all journalism categories except for the competition's two photography categories, which will continue to restrict entries to still images. The Pulitzer categories range from investigative and international reporting to commentary, editorial writing, and cartooning.
"This board believes that its much fuller embrace of online journalism reflects the direction of newspapers in a rapidly changing media world," said Sig Gissler, administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes."
It seems from reading the Pulitzer's press release that the online-only content has to be part of a newspaper, but it is surely only a matter of time....
"The site already offers a mix of opinion," according to the NYT. Has the reporter ever looked at the site? What's the mix? Liberal and more liberal and most liberal? Its opinion is entirely widely left of center. But on that side, at least, I guess it's a mix - at least the sort the Times, not exactly distinguished for its own diversity of viewpoint, sees as a "mix."
The real question, though, is who the hell needs "a political website for celebrity bloggers"? Doesn't the intrusion of celebrity make it sort of an anti-blog - and do the celebrities actually write their own posts?
Posted by: Frank Wilson | 02 December 2006 at 18:46
I have heard of only a very few of these people in their (the HP's) headlines, so I couldn't work out whether the bloggers themselves are the celebrities (among bloggers?) or whether the site purports to be "about celebrities". I think probably the latter, as rather than being "liberal" I would say it is more similar to the National Enquirer in peddling speculative gossip.
What are 2.3 million people a month doing reading this kind of drivel anyway? (sorry to be rude, but I couldn't see anything that tempted me to read beyond the front page.)
Posted by: Maxine | 02 December 2006 at 19:26
Good question, Maxine. I think it's drivel, too. But notice that the Times seems to like it.
Posted by: Frank Wilson | 03 December 2006 at 18:04