Interesting piece in the Inquirer about the use of the term “blogs” – just like the British to get picky about nomenclature. To wit:
ENOUGH WITH CALLING every site on the (#*&$ing net a blog, people! I know the mass media is filled with dumb sheep that need to spread fear about anacondas in toilets to get ratings, but this has gone too far. What am I talking about? It seems every site that puts up content that is not owned by a major media outlet that has a TV channel is now blogging.
The INQ is a blog, Boing Boing is a blog, and just about every site is a blog. Does it matter what the content is, or how many people work for it? Heck no, it is a blog because talking about blogs make the media worms seem hip, cool, and most importantly not as stupid as they really are. Hint, they are that dumb.
OK, fair enough, so the rule is?….
A single person writing about their experiences, thoughs, or research, no matter how many hits it gets, definitely a blog. Once money and a staff get involved, it loses its blog status and becomes a site.
Don’t know if I’d agree, not that it matters. I think one of the key distinguishing factors of a “blog” is its tone – a bit more off the cuff, more casual, more observational, more frank, etc. etc. – a little more honest – whether or not someone is making money at it or not. Probably not as precise as the folks at The Inquirer but just my $0.02. Least I’m safe for now. Then again, if suddenly I get a million pageviews a day and actually start making making money from this thing hand over fist (which btw isn’t really the point of this blog), I doubt I’d actually care what they call it. And likely neither to Boing Boing et al.
