ZDNet: Anatomy of a ‘Blogging will kill you’ story: Why I didn’t make the cut. I read the New York Times’ take on how the stress of blogging and how it can kill you with great interest: I was interviewed for it. But I pretty much knew I wouldn’t make the final story as my take was different than Matt Richtel’s.
My own reaction to Matt’s piece was similar: I find the premise breathtakingly shallow because the data are so breathtakingly shallow. As Dingan notes in his piece:
Yes, blogging is stressful. Yes, it can be insane. But is it any worse than being a corporate lawyer? How many of those folks dropped in the last six months? How about mortgage brokers? Hedge fund traders? FBI agents? Any job where you gnash your teeth together? We write for a living, yap all day and don’t have to wear suits. You could do worse than blogging.
on Apr 7th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I’m just glad there are no reliable statistics on mortality for news executives.
on Apr 7th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Dan,
It seems to me that the issue is poorly defined: what *kind* of blogging?… it can be an enjoyable walk in the park or a recurrent nightmare and probably pretty much everything in between — all in a day of blogging.
Delia
on Apr 8th, 2008 at 12:33 am
[…] isso, já se contam algumas mortes entre os profissionais da blogosfera. Dan Gilmor respondeu com Blogging Kills Disproportionately? NYT’s Story Doesn’t Make the Case. Por aqui pelo Lago, nem dinheiro nem […]
on Apr 8th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Did you see the word “disproportionately” in the story? I didn’t.
This whole brouhaha was another example of blog-evangelist tactics, pummel anything that isn’t gushing praise of blogging.
on Apr 8th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Dan,
It seems to me that the issue is poorly defined: what *kind* of blogging?… it can be an enjoyable walk in the park or a recurrent nightmare and probably pretty much everything in between — all in a day of blogging.
Delia
on Apr 8th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Dan,
I’m a bit confused about the “other Delia” that started to post on this blog while I was taking a break. No, I don’t have exclusive claim to my first name but I found it strange that that name is not present on her blog anywhere I could see, yet she uses it to post here.
Delia
P.S. Not necessarily ill intended, of course, just seems odd to me… D.
on Apr 8th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Seth,
Don’t you think it’s a legitimate concern? for *some* blogging/blogers? The issue could definitely be better framed but it is one worth talking about… I think.
Delia
on Apr 8th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Come on, Seth — it was a trend story that certainly implied disproportionate deaths even if it didn’t say so outright, “to be sure” language notwithstanding…
on Apr 8th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Dan&Seth: I don’t think the issue can be presented in *general terms* — it’s WAY too varied… might just as well ask, “Is *reading* killing us?” — it all depends what are you reading and how you react to it, doesn’t it? it may well give heart attacks to some of people… D.
on Apr 8th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Dan, regarding “certainly implied disproportionate” – how many many blog-evangelism articles *imply* great success for bloggers in general, and when a critics calls out the evangelist on it, the critic will get personally attacked by an A-lister denying the implication? After all, just because one talks about the big winners, how such-as-such is heard and powerful and influencial, why would that be a basis to infer that bloggers are, err, “disproportionately” influencial?
But let someone write about a downside affecting the BigHeads … well, that’s different.
on May 1st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Sorry to be weighing in so late … the story was hilarious! My students loved it. Why is everyone taking it so seriously?
on May 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
Why take seriously? I don’t know, maybe because it’s on Page 1 of the Times?