The Denver Post has started a number of blogs. Most are written by people who already have a public voice, IE radio talkshow hosts or writers who already write regular columns. At first glance, they look like regular newspaper columns, except more amateurish. Which is probably how the Post editors feel about blogs.
From a blogger's perspective, they look second rate. Not many (not one?) links to any other blogs, nor have they any in-text links. And if you publish your blog weekly, isn't that pretty much just a regular newspaper column? It's as if these were just articles that couldn't make the cut for the dead-tree edition of the newspaper.
the Post doesn't get it. The blogs are just unedited columns written too fast. Without links. Avoidable.
Hey, nice blog, by the way.
Posted by: JB at September 15, 2003 01:12 AMI feel the same way. I e-mailed the person in charge of that aspect of the site (he writes one of the blogs, Gil someone), suggesting they do some coverage of local blogs, maybe spotlight them in a rotating manner, and the response was underenthusiastic.
A lot of them seem to be fairly personal stuff (from what I scanned) as well, which falls prey to what Stephen King once said in a book of his (paraphrasing) - everyone has a history, and 90% of it isn't that interesting.
Posted by: andy at September 15, 2003 07:11 AM
The Denver Post is clueless.
The so-called Denver Post "blogs" suck wind bit time.
What a friggin' joke.
Posted by: Doug Kenline at September 15, 2003 10:34 AM