Interesting piece by Paul Boutin in Wired, the Web Magazine.  Apparently the future is multimedia.

Text based blogging has been colonised by professionals. Folk want video and audio as well now. Someone should teach this stuff at university. Read the piece here 

Comments

There was a discussion about this on Today this morning. With a baffled John Humphrys attempting to lead it, and getting totally bewildered by terms like 'tweets', 'twitters' and the 'blogosphere'.

The thrust of the Wired piece seems to be that blogging is dead because it's been taken over by professional writers - i.e journalists who might have something original to say. Or some news to break. These have pushed aside the amateurs blogging about their sick cat - who can no longer get on to the front page of Google or Technorati rankings. Shame.

Instead, it suggests the future lies (at least partly) with Twitter, the SMS text-based service where inanity reigns supreme. Well let's head over to Twitter to see what's  being discussed right now:

Scrapaunt says: Going out for a run and then to get my hair trimmed and nails done.No kids today until I pick up Ryan from busstop at 4pm.

Riveting.

Meanwhile, SookieSue is: Steeling myself for today's liquid diet and multiple laxatives in prep for tomorrow's colonoscopy. Hooray.

Thanks for that.

This is the future? Spare me.

Ian Reeves is deputy head of the Centre for Journalism

I loved that interview on Today, I thought it was hilarious. Is debating the end of the blogosphere with two people who don't believe it's ending really a newsworthy debate? Especially when someone who's never heard of it is asking the questions.

Funny stuff, though.

I'm going to defend Twitter again, for the same reason that I briefly mentioned in conference earlier - it has, at times, been the place where important events, from earthquakes to bombings, first surface.

I imagine it's also nice for those attention seeking people of the world to huddle in one place and tell each other useless shit. 

True, it is good for breaking news, but at the same time can be a mixed-bag with some useless stuff "slipping through the net". Then again, that sounds ridiculously cynical, as what product doesn't carry unneccessary baggage with it?

Blogging is something which already appears to be "facebook-ised" by those using Twitter. Not that facebook isn't useful, but it allows inane, irrelevant and tedious points to be raised whether people wish to hear them or not. This appears to be what is happening on Twitter.

Luckily, the journalists have "colonised" it, as otherwise it would become a major farce. Although, reading the twitter stuff was bloody funny at the same time.

As for Humphrys, leave him to what he is best at in my view, grilling politicians. However, if my Grandma can become a techno-geek, then so can he!

As expected, there are a huge amount of blogs on the Internet about blogging being dead. *Cough*. The problem here is that there are articles going back to 2005 about it being dead, yet here we are another three years on.

True and a good point. When are they going to stop blogging completely then if it is apparently "dead", despite the obvious evidence you've found which proves it isn't. People have clearly missed the idea that blogging is evolving, but carrying less tittle-tattle than it once may have done.

"As unbelievable as this may sound, many people don't blog for
Internet fame, hipness, or validation from strangers. Most bloggers
just enjoy the act of writing, and keeping a blog is simply an easy,
efficient way to express themselves.

But hey, forget people expressing themselves creatively. Let's tell
them not to do things they enjoy because it's not considered cool
enough by a hipper-than-thou Internet elitist!"

One of the comments on Wired that really caught my attention. This is the exact point, which blogging actually stands for. Fame, wealth and google-hits is a perverse perspective from which to analyse the efficiency of blogging. Wired's (well, the 'columnist' Paul Boutinis trying to express) analytical viewpoint is of the 'handyness' side of blogging - compared to a simple write-whatever-you-want thing like Tw. Furthermore, it does (in my opinion) stress the point, that it's looking at the side of blogging, that made it famous - amateur writers, activists or commentators. And that is losing its ground quickly. He even states that in his article:

"The blogosphere, once a freshwater oasis of folksy self-expression and
clever thought, has been flooded by a tsunami of paid bilge. Cut-rate
journalists and underground marketing campaigns now drown out the
authentic voices of amateur wordsmiths."

Those innovative or soon-to-be great analysts will STILL be found, if looked for. The only reason why blogging is 'dying' is that its not hitting the top hits on google search. Yet, few will go to the extent of finding those hidden gems. The standards of blogging have been raised and for you to be noticed, you have to be something new, something original - that has happened everywhere in our capitalistic world by now (stars, actresses, writers, etc), why not blogging?

By those standards, amateur-blogging IS dead. Personal blogging will probably remain for a long time, even if you just want a place where to be able to browse your writings. Tw is a black hole of random verbal abuse, which will be appreciated by its simplicity (hey, werent blogs appreciated for its simplicity aswell in the beginning?).

Everything progresses, something new will pop up soon (or evolve from something). Video-blogging is becoming extremely popular already - YouTube is already used as a forum for themes ranging from cooking to politics (video-chat, the loss of anonymacy make you consider what you say). Dozens of other small ideas are gathering ground. As long as there is space where to evolve, things will.

Blogging is Dead