Magazine about blogging & podcasting. How ironic.
May 7, 2007 1:24 AM   Subscribe

Blogger & Podcaster to become a successful blogger online, one must apparently appear in an offline magazine. Ho-kay.
posted by dabitch (30 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite
 
Don't laugh now. Laugh when scans of this are posted on Boing Boing in 2032.
posted by Jimbob at 2:04 AM on May 7, 2007 [4 favorites]


I'm personally more excited about Post and Permalink.
posted by simonw at 2:32 AM on May 7, 2007


Hahaha, that's great: Trackback, you're it!
posted by dabitch at 2:38 AM on May 7, 2007


Yeah, it might seem odd to some people, but it's sort of like the "Roller Boogie" rule: every hobby, no matter how trivial or silly it might seem to outsiders, will eventually get its very own movie and/or magazine and/or TV show.
posted by davidmsc at 4:22 AM on May 7, 2007


...to become a successful blogger online, one must apparently appear in an offline magazine...

1) But how do I become a successful blogger offline?

2) Success at blogging no more requires appearing in this magazine than success in science requires appearing in Discover. And I don't see any claims on the site to the contrary.

But don't let me ruin the oldmedialolfest.
posted by DU at 4:49 AM on May 7, 2007


Blogging is now an "industry"?
posted by WPW at 4:58 AM on May 7, 2007


Well, I saw the "Dalai Lama From Brooklyn Show" link, and I hoped it was, you know, the Dalai Lama blogging. Turns out it's just this guy. Does he not know that the Dalai Lama is a living person, whose views are of interest to a lot of people, unlike someone pushing his "successful healing practice in Rockville, MD?"
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:14 AM on May 7, 2007


Success at blogging no more requires appearing in this magazine than success in science requires appearing in Discover.

Well, success in science does require hard work and original ideas, which is more than you can say for most bloggers.

But whatever. They've got magazines for crochet. They've got magazines for scrapbooking. They've got magazines for stamp collecting. They've even got magazines for pig shooting. A magazine for blogging only makes sense. With a magazine like this out there, it can only serve to increase the number of quality links appearing on del.icio.us, trying to teach me "27 Ulitmate Body Hacks You Can't Live Without" and "12 Things You Need To Know About Pooping Before You Die", and that can only be a good thing.
posted by Jimbob at 5:21 AM on May 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


This magazine brought to you by Raging Self-Importance!

It's interesting to see how various forms of the printed medium are treating web content. The Metro newspaper in Boston (which performs a valuable service on the T by lining the floors of the subway trains) runs a feature where, on a top bar across the page, they describe a bunch of high-larious videos they found on YouTube the other day, presumably in between bong hits and rounds of Halo 2.

Thing is, they don't bother to print the URL. True, all them vQx0iZCd identifiers in the YouTube URL are a pain to type and I wouldn't expect someone to unless they were really dedicated, but something seemed laughably strange to me about a newspaper just writing "HAY GUYS WE SAW A CAT PLAYING A PIANO" and expecting the reader to then leave the train, find an Internet connection, and search for "cat playing piano" on YouTube.

At least, it seemed laughably strange to me until I saw billboards in NYC that featured no URL, but simply said "Google for (Our Product Name)." I'm sure somewhere, a corporate marketing goon is patting themselves on the back for an achievement in brand synergy well done, blah blah woof woof, but honestly, it's just plain lazy.
posted by Spatch at 5:21 AM on May 7, 2007


Hey! I'm an aspiring new media titan... where do I sign up?
posted by psmealey at 5:31 AM on May 7, 2007


Well yeah, I can't see why bloggers would be interested in reading about something that happened more than 12 minutes ago.
posted by cillit bang at 5:46 AM on May 7, 2007


At least, it seemed laughably strange to me until I saw billboards in NYC that featured no URL, but simply said "Google for (Our Product Name)." I'm sure somewhere, a corporate marketing goon is patting themselves on the back for an achievement in brand synergy well done, blah blah woof woof, but honestly, it's just plain lazy

Wait, why is this weird? Even if I know the URL for some company, I'm much more likely to put the company's name in my Google searchbar than to type in the URL directly. Do doesn't this billboard just reflect people's actual web practice?
posted by escabeche at 6:07 AM on May 7, 2007


Does it include a section on how to pick out your red cape and googles?
posted by drezdn at 6:08 AM on May 7, 2007


i could see why its important to appear in offline media - the web's reach is only so great and is severely lacking in certain demographics (cue old people)

that said, this magazine appeals to those who ALREADY read blogs and digital media. what's the point?
posted by 2shay at 6:26 AM on May 7, 2007


Hey, there's a new issue of Z-lister out!
posted by cortex at 6:47 AM on May 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


I remember a number of years ago they had a magazine out called Yahoo Internet Life and everybody around me thought I was nuts paying for an offline magazine about online stuff. Although a better (albeit more expensive) solution would be a laptop with wifi access, I liked being able to take an issue with me and read about the Web when I couldn't take a computer. And there was some great writing in it. I loved the columns by Roger Ebert and Angela Gunn.

As for a magazine about blogging, outside my own little street corner I don't have much of an idea what's really going on overall. I can't tell which blogs I'm 'supposed' to be paying attention to. I only know about the ones that draw my personal attention, and I come to places like this to get a broader idea what the 'buzz' is but it couldn't hurt to have a zine that'd report on all this. I dunno. I'd probably buy a copy every now and then.

It seems silly and funny but it's not entirely stupid.
posted by ZachsMind at 6:56 AM on May 7, 2007


Wait, why is this weird? Even if I know the URL for some company, I'm much more likely to put the company's name in my Google searchbar than to type in the URL directly. Do doesn't this billboard just reflect people's actual web practice?

Well, yes and no. It's a good way to find out more about the company and it is common web practice, but it's usually done at one's own discretion. This ad forced you to. It had absolutely no other information about what the company was about, why you should look it up, or even what it sold. Just to Google for its name.

Perhaps I'm a bit contrarian, but when I'm presented with an ad which says "Oh, just google our name and find out what we're about", I immediately think "No." If they're not gonna make the effort to at least explain a bit about themselves, my reaction is to not want to make the effort to do the extra legwork.

It was a half-hearted attempt to drum up curiosity without grabbing the viewer at all. No tempting hooks, no nothing, and of course it was one of those nebulously ridiculous company names which have no bearing whatsoever on whatever product or service it is they wish to sell you.

On the other hand, they paid a lot of money for billboard space, so they can put up whatever they want, but it's not like they were being charged by the word or anything.
posted by Spatch at 7:39 AM on May 7, 2007


It was a half-hearted attempt to drum up curiosity without grabbing the viewer at all.

The viewer in question, anyway. I'm not saying it's high art, but as a clever and minimalist ploy it's knd of cute, and I'd bet that for every curmudgeon who grunts and declares the ad a failure there's someone else who laughs and maybe checks it out.

Google hasn't been around forever. Google-as-verb has been around even less time. There are plenty of people for whom these things are still new to some extent. You're not the target market? C'est la vie.
posted by cortex at 7:50 AM on May 7, 2007


Does pasting a head shot over a picture count as "appearing"? If so, I should be famous any moment now.
posted by tommasz at 8:10 AM on May 7, 2007


Anyone remember when blogging was referred to as "EN" or "E/N?" It was exactly the same thing as it is now, but without the self importance.

...which makes it considerably different I guess.
posted by grimcity at 8:23 AM on May 7, 2007


I used to date a guy who pronounced it "b-logging" when "blogging" had long been a common term. He wasn't aware he was wrong but proudly considered himself something of a web expert.

He'd probably subscribe to the print edition just to impress other people when he picks up his mail.
posted by katillathehun at 9:39 AM on May 7, 2007


Jimbob: "Well, success in science does require hard work and original ideas, which is more than you can say for most bloggers."

Coincidentally, that's more than you can say for most scientists.
See also Sturgeon's Law.
posted by Plutor at 10:06 AM on May 7, 2007


Zach, thank you for reminding me of YIL magazine. It was indeed a good way to get info about what was happening on the web when you couldn't be on the web as much as you wanted to. But it ultimately failed, which is not good portent for B&P.

And grimcity, I always thought the "EN" or "E/N" or "E/N?" o "Evrything/Nothing" label was intrinsically far more self-important than "blog". But I still have a problem with "podcast", not owning an ipod and not planning to.

Anyway, the flash-based literally-a-magazine-on-your-screen version of B&P is a little obnoxious, especially the "magazine ads" with built-in animation and/or sound. Although it'd be ubercool (for about five minutes) to hold a paper magazine that did that.
posted by wendell at 1:29 PM on May 7, 2007


The Metro newspaper in Boston

A Boston Newspaper Prints What the Local Bloggers Write -- "BostonNow, a free weekday daily, is culling blog posts and running excerpts next to articles from reporters and newswires."
posted by ericb at 1:35 PM on May 7, 2007


Now that's a businessplan.
posted by dabitch at 1:38 PM on May 7, 2007


Oh come on there's a magazine for everything. That said, I do like a publication with an editor who knows what he or she is doing. There's no shortage of web enterprises in a 'magazine' formats and people dont seem to have a problem with that. A decent magazine that can show me stuff I havent seen and perhaps some interviews with higher-profile people than the people wh comment on blogs (hi ma!) would be nice. I can see the potential for some great interviews if someone sat down with one of the guys from wordpress or an old media guy in a powerful position to talk about blogs, their future, etc.

They're not exactly trying to lift the titanic with the hindenberg. If done right this could have potential. off the top of my head I can think of three dead-tree publications that shouldnt exist because the web could better reach its audience: 2600, wired, and fastcompany. If the hackers, lightweight geeks, and ecommerce types can do it, so can the bloggers.
posted by damn dirty ape at 2:15 PM on May 7, 2007


Also, the gf doesnt let me bring a laptop in the bathroom.
posted by damn dirty ape at 2:16 PM on May 7, 2007


Also, the gf doesnt let me bring a laptop in the bathroom.

Duh -- there's no streaming-video of pron in "dead tree" versions of Reader's Digest.
posted by ericb at 4:04 PM on May 7, 2007


Anyone remember when blogging was referred to as "EN" or "E/N?"

Actually, I do, I was just thinking about that this morning. And I think I prefer the label, because it can actually be more accurate. "Weblog" originally mean "Log of things on the web". A list of cool links, in other words, like Metafilter. Political commentary isn't necessarily a "blog". Photos of your kitten isn't really a "blog". The distinction is lost now, of course, but "E/N" was probably a better term for sites that included content other than links to other sites.
posted by Jimbob at 4:43 PM on May 7, 2007


I am the Most Important Weblogger of my species. And the only one, at least until I get eaten by A GIANT FREAKING SPIDER.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:04 AM on May 8, 2007


« Older Be aggressive from superdeluxe   |   Cold, hard spy devices. Or not. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments