Very interesting article appears last month in The Economist magazine. It's the Economist, stupid. They meantioned weblogging in their writings about traditional publishing and online publishing. Wow ! It's clear that even those mainstream media these days can't avoid blogosfere as community of all sorts of blogs. Good and bad. But, hey for those of you who don't know that The Economist makes very influential comments ( based on the best business intelligence available ) on everything , this article is perfect for those of you who still think blog is revolution. :-)
Why all these media are so slow in incorporating blogs into their everyday newsmaking? Is it because of business model that doesn't exist ? Well, blogs weren't intended to bring money at all. It would be best to remain so. After all , it is for us ordinary and extraordinary people.
The Economist concludes:
So what do big media groups stand to gain from adopting a format that delights in promoting competitors' content, and relies on relinquishing editorial control? Such a question, say bloggers, misunderstands the force of weblogs. “Traditional publishing is about putting on a show; building a network of weblogs is like hosting a party,” says Simon Waldman, head of digital publishing at the Guardian.
For all the costly and failed efforts by media companies to create and charge for online material, blogging suggests that the web works best as a link to other people—and a way of finding and raiding their content. As InstaPundit's Glenn Reynolds says, “the threat to big media is not to its pocketbook but to its self-importance.”
Comments