Blogging 3.0

Quo Vadis again again

Blogging 1.0 often replaced the plethora of special purpose forums that were apparently everywhere.

Blogging 2.0 consisted of some special-purpose sites, but the real blogosphere was comprised of many sites very much like The Agonist: covering a wide range of topics, multiple viewpoints, meaningful (and sometimes heated) discussion, generally outside of and frequently in opposition to the MSM.

It seems to me it’s time to ask, “What will Blogging 3.0 bring?” As has been noted elsewhere, the drop-off in activity is not limited to The Agonist but blogs with a specialized focus are still healthy. Generalized blogs are either attached to some other money-making entity, independently funded or dependent on reader contributions.

We have never (at least in my time here) asked for donations. IMHO, if we hope to stave off a slow decline into total insignificance we are left with the option of focusing our efforts more tightly, trying to become the go-to blog for some particular subject. The question then becomes what area should we focus on?

I once noted that various members have different areas of expertise and suggested they ‘educate’ the rest of us. There’s even a special category (Primer) for that. It is empty.
So much for that idea.

Given the credentials and interests of Agonistas, what do you think we might specialize in?

Ask not what The Agonist can do for you…..

4 Replies to “Blogging 3.0”

  1. I think blogs do something that the mainstream media generally has not done well: news analysis. Now, it is true many blog sites focus on a favorite issue or set of issues, and do analysis through a lens of a political stance. This is to say many blogs are intended as platforms of persuasion. How many are platforms of discovery? How many try to explore current events in the old fashioned investigative way. Blogs today depend on urgency and immediacy, reactive commentary—maybe they should try something else. I mentioned that 3 Quarks Daily is an interesting site for me because it presents a variety of commentaries in arts and science and philosophy. In a lot of ways it reminds me of the New York Review of Books which I used to read (paper edition). The intersection between current events and the articles at hand is not always apparent, but the connections to the themes underlying current events are usually there. Is that too abstract to be appealing? Okay, so maybe volunteer writers don’t have time to do long-form blogging. I can understand that. But maybe there is something in that direction.

    As to the Primer heading, I wasn’t even a aware of it.

  2. A hopelessness born of apathy and ignorance…
    I would like to offer an idea for a path/direction/subject; but I have nothing to offer…

  3. I’m having difficulty defining just what the value of blogs are.
    I do not see them as much more than places to opine and argue.
    Ian’s place, TAE, and Zero Hedge barely stay above the fray.
    I have zero evidence blogs affect anything and reflect proclivities invited and entertained.
    But then, I don’t dumpster dive, and thereby miss many political hot-spots.
    One further observation; there is/has been a major disconnect across the political spectrum as people realize the hopelessness of their plight…

Leave a Reply