« Hope I don't have to be called a Dudette or anything | Main | I gotcher chart right here, buddy »

July 30, 2007


uneasy rhetoric

Back a couple years ago when the Bee did a story on local bloggers and interviewed me for it, they said flat out that they couldn't use me unless I gave my full name. At the time I was blogging semi-anonymously so it was a big decision for me to give them the go-ahead.

Now that I've returned to semi-anonymity (anonymity-lite?) and am not likely to open that door again for a while, they'll probably never call on me again. Sigh. I admit to being a bit of a publicity ho...und.

But at least they did link to you. That's pretty cool.

And I still get the paper too.


Hey, and did you notice the first few bloggers got hyperlinks and the rest of us didn't? I've asked the reporter to correct that in the online version and he's "forwarding it to the Internet people." So, what that tells me, is he obviously actually visited our blogs himself!

But, there's no such thing as bad publicity, huh?


For a real laugh, consider this: The guy who wrote the article interviewed me, having visited RTrider.blogspot.com. Then when he discovered I work across the hall from him, he went, Oops, and was never heard from again.

For the record, ipsoSacto.com is NOT owned or operated by The Bee. It was started as a testbed for some ideas for increasing the "opinion" content at sacbee.com, but that didn't go anywhere. The site continues today as a hobby project with 366 blogs listed at ipsosacto.com/bloglist


I didn't get this request for some reason. I would have happily given linkage to my peeps!


John, I'll correct "the record" on Ipso Sacto. And in retrospect, I feel like I bagged too hard on this article. It was a nice intro piece. Sacbee doesn't write exclusively for me.


The chasm between online and print: Yes, it's mind-blowing, and one of the mind-blowingest things about it is the people inside the papers are wringing their hands over blogs and online media and paying lots of lip service to the "new media landscape" while continually showing they have no understanding of what the hell's happening around them. Case in point is this attribution thing. There's a very, very good reason to insist upon identifying sources in some contexts -- and papers regularly ignore that to grant anonymous status to insiders with hot or spuriously hot info. And there are other contexts in which it's not at all crucial. In this case, who the heck needs a last name? The article contains links, and for the purposes of an article on blogging, that's showing readers who you are and where you live.

The comments to this entry are closed.