“the New York Times link to me yesterday prompted only one (angry) email. It also generated one-fifth of the traffic I normally get from a link from Small Dead Animals. Interpret all that as you will.”
“the New York Times link to me yesterday prompted only one (angry) email. It also generated one-fifth of the traffic I normally get from a link from Small Dead Animals. Interpret all that as you will.”
If only I was a smoker…..
Thankful to see that the lack of influence of traditional media is becoming apparent to most by now.
What used to be “content” and “service” was replaced with “clap-trap” and “sales.” And they thought nobody noticed.
Poorly written stories, heavy bias and ad-laden layouts have condemned MSM to their own pathetic death.
And at the funeral not even those liberals that supported it will attend because of the “me first” attitude.
…New York Times? Isn’t that a clock repair place or something?
I wonder how many people in the mainstream media are
1. learning to use a computer better
2. trying to get someone to teach them how to set up a blog
3. considering going back to university to become a …. er … school teacher
4. thinking this whole down-turn in the MSM will blow over
5. checking out their retirement options
6. looking for a good enough injury to get some long term disability
7. know it’s over and wish they were dead
Well let’s see….could it be because SDA is interested in the truth?
Truth is after all a concept that is foreign to the MSM.
PS – congratulations to Kathy on being linked by the NYT, which produced such an interesting statistic for us to enjoy!
It’s simple:
Kathy and Kate are two rocking blogger chicks.
Among the best out there, including the massive American blogosphere.
Don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade here, I too love bashing the leftard MSM and I’m also steadfast SDA surfer…but having said that…
I must point out it’s not the same, surfing from one hyperlinked site to another hyperlinked site versus reading the dead tree printout NY Times and then remembering a link or other paper reference to follow-up on the next time one goes online.
That is easy to understand ladies. The people that actually read the NY Times get this blank look on their faces when told there is a world beyond the NY Times.
Can’t wait till you guys have reformed our criminal justice system – esp. the youth part
“All-White Jury Delivers ‘Not Guilty’ Verdict in Boot Camp Beating Death of Black Teen”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3726041&page=1
Well Ron, there are two possibilities here. Being a conservative type I’m going to list them BOTH.
A)The black kid got beat to death in jail by white racists, and a bunch more white racist jury members let them go. Oh yeah, and the coroner was racist too so whatever he said about the cause of death, forget that.
B)The kid died of complications from sickle cell anemia entirely unrelated to the beating, as discovered in the postmortem, which is why the jury found the guards not guilty of manslaughter. Because they weren’t.
An entirely separate issue is whether beating kids in boot camp jail will have the desired effect of getting them to stop doing crime. Given that the US military (who invented boot camp) has discovered that beatings are counter productive, I’m thinking no.
M’kay? Any other trolls from you Ron?
Incidentally that little byplay is the reason why nobody with a brain is reading the NY Slimes. You already know what it says inside before you pick it up. It all sounds like Ron.
Who the hell wants to read that every day?
Who the hell wants to read [New York Times] that every day?
what would bloggers have to write about if not for the NYT? generally, reacting to pieces put out by the MSM is the bulk of content put out on the blogosphere.
I guess we’ll find out pretty soon when the Slimes goes under, rb. Their parent company stock is doing a long slide into the ditch.
I generally post about science. I read the actual news release at Eureka Alert and react to that. Reading the NY Slimes Science page would be an exercise in waste motion for me, because they almost always print some form of sensationalist poo that is completely wrong.
Your mileage may differ.
I accidentally sat in a coffee shop today with today’s Globe and Mail on the table.
I glanced at the the anti Bush rants and the Al Gore praise stuff. Then I noted a piece by that Christy Blatchford put up.
Let me quote the last lines of her anti blog diatribe.
“I do not blog, I have not blogged and, furthermore, I do not care to read blogs.”
And that, dearest, beloved Christy is why you will be taking early retirement.
Next thing you know she will down in the basement smashing the machinery that prints the papers she writes for. I mean think of all the scribes that could get their jobs back if we could the quill back in action. And how about a few Criers for the late breaking stuff.
Idiot.
If I may get off topic only slightly, but still in MSM silly mode.
The hype is about Gore tossing his hat in the ring to get the power of the US presidency in order to do more for the cause.
I can only hope his ego gets the better of him and he bites down on that piece of rawhide.
When the Clintons are done with him there will be nothing left but a forehead vein in a dark suit with several world class awards stuffed in the pockets flapping in the breeze.
“When the Clintons are done with him”
I have this image of a big, fat zeppelin drifting into a couple of high voltage power lines. (btw, not intended as a compliment for the clintons.)
The NYT is only fit for the bottom of my Birdcage.
But, Personally, I think the owners should be tried for treason and sedition, tarred and feathered and runout of town.
On the other hand, it is a bastion of Bleeding Heart Liberal Idealogy.
Either way, Good Job Kate..
Aw gee thanks, your mentioning the NYT just reminded me I need to clean my budgies cage.
Possibly because only 1/5 of people read the NY Slime anymore than read SDA or FFOF?
“prompted only one (angry) email”
I suppose that sums up Shaidle well enough. She measures success in how many angry emails she gets.
Saskboy,
If she said “prompted only one (supportive) email” would that make any difference on how she measures success? FYI: Sorry that it has to be spelled out for you, but point is one email.
err … but the point is one email.
Maybe they don’t want to email it’s so 90’s,.. now we want to comment,
😉
Tomax, I may have to steal that line (with credit to you, natch)
Just to clarify, the link was from the NYT blog only, the Lede. So no “having to remember to the url later.”
The typical pattern for a post link to me is:
SDA: 2,000
Mark Steyn/the Corner: around 1200
All Canadian and US lefty bloggers combined, reacting to the same post by a) reprinting my post in its entirety without contradicting any of my claims, then b) declaring once again that I am old, fat, ugly and need to get laid: 300 at the very very most.
The Phantom says, “I guess we’ll find out pretty soon when the Slimes goes under, rb. Their parent company stock is doing a long slide into the ditch. I generally post about science.”
And all of your posts involving non-science topics seem to link directly or indirectly to a MSM source. So when the traditional print media finally folds, will you be posting exclusively about $2,500 super-computers?
The end of the MSM would spell the end of “political” blogs. What percentage of posts at SDA, 5FoF, or any other popular blog is commentary about MSM reports, do ya think?
Some alternate explanations for why Kathy got only 1 angry email:
(1) Most NYTimes.com visitors are there to read the news coverage, not the blogs (or course, sometimes they then go and comment about it on their own blogs).
(2) The Lede post was about how utterly predictable right and left bloggers would be in their commentary about Al’s Nobel. His point was that there was nothing original at 5FoF worth reading about on this topic, and hence no reason to visit.
(3) Kathy doesn’t allow comments on 5FoF.
You know “Rupert”, I’ve been blogging since before you knew what blogs were, and before comments were invented.
And I’ve said everything using my real, full name.
This bizarre fetish johnny-come-lately nobodies like you have about “comments”, which many big name blogs don’t have — see Instapundit, for one– is merely a substitute for real thought and critique.
I don’t have comments for many reasons, mostly because I don’t want to give parasitical, unoriginal dorks more of a forum than they deserve.
Try harder.
Kathy, I’m not taking you to task for not allowing comments on your blog. I’m just pointing out that sending an email to the blog owner takes more of an effort than posting an (anonymous) comment on a blog, and that one should be cautious of reading “1 angry email” too literally.
Also, I’ve been working in the CS field since graduate school some 30 years ago, so if you insist on being snarky, at least have the courtesy of also being accurate.
Graduate school. Ew.
Give’em hell Kathy. Few can match your penetrating insight and courage.
I direct Rupert’s attention to the next thread, wherein Kate posts another MSM rush to extinction.
Rupert, most of my posts linked to the MSM are comments on the egregious stupidity of the MSM article I linked to. If they all shrivel and die I’ll have much less to complain about. More science bloging, no doubt.
First the Mythinformation of the ‘New-Tabloids’ has to be shut down. (Dumbing-down is for sales meetings)
Then, yes, more time can be spent on science and other topics.
Who is Rupert Murduck ??
It looks like Kathy is a bit testy today. Rupert must be wondering what he stepped into.
IMHO, The New York Times is best known for:
– the “Best Seller” lists, and,
– the Damn crossword puzzle I have never been able to finish.