So the Wall Street Journal is doing a series that "looks at real estate and career prospects for young professionals starting out in their careers." I presumed that this series would be condescending. It isn't. The word I'd use is "horrifying."
In case you missed this, the Wall Street Journal's article on DC young professionals is all 'bout bloggers. Seriously. This is the wave of the future in DC. Bloggers. Ugh.
Look, I'm happy for the bloggers WSJ profiled. It's not like I would turn someone down if they offered me a salary and appearances on Hardball just for writing this shitty blog. These people are all talented and deserve the praise. (Full disclosure: I got quite drunk with two of the profiled bloggers last night. I wish I read this article before seeing them so I could have had something more entertaining to say than "Yeah, um, DC sucks.") It's just, I don't know, isn't the "blogosphere" self-congratulatory enough without the Wall Street Journal getting involved?
Anyone who thinks they can make a living off blogging is hopelessly optimistic and sadly deluded. For almost all of them, that big break from Gothamist or Gawker Media will never happen. And this is a gift from heaven since most people are terrible, terrible writers. There are millions of blogs out there and most of them don't deserve a second look. As Toby's shirt says, "No one cares about your blog."
And the fact that DC young professionals, a label which obviously applies to me, are being noted for getting paid to blog is some the stupidest shit I've ever read. The DC population between 20 and 34 is 131,504. Something tells me that only a few dozen, at most, are paid to blog out of that group. So, thanks for the insipid article, WSJ. Aren't there some summer associates at Steptoe you could be bothering? I bet they outnumber all the hip bloggers.
9.13.2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But Rusty, if you worked for the D.C. Madam, you'd be getting paid to F#$% instead of being paid nothing to blog. Why don't you just accept that your aptitude lies elsewhere and start hustling already. Capitol Hill... clients... hurry up. When you're done, you'll have a book, not a blog. Even better.
ReplyDeleteDo I smell a touch of envy? with a side of popular by association? hmmm?
ReplyDeleteYeah Rusty,
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting to get paid for my rape jokes and pointless attacks on other blogs. I can't believe I haven't hit it big yet, I have DOZENS of readers.
Right Rusty, because if there's one group more obscenely self-congratulatory than bloggers, it's biglaw summer associates.
ReplyDeleteWho cares, I mean really?!?! I do enjoy reading blogs, but I have a theory on them: they are a T-R-E-N-D. Did we all read blogs 5 years ago? Hell no. And I would wager no one in 5 years will be read and/or making a living off of "blogs" as we know them today. Also, the blogger market is so ridiculously oversaturated it’s sickening; I would sternly warn anyone with dreams of being a professional blogger against basing their future on a contingency plan.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, according to the WSJ article DC comes in BEHIND Pittsburgh and Philly in the number of blogs?!?!?! I’m sorry, but why the fuck would Shitsburgh have so many blogs? For the interesting events that happens daily there? The unions? The decline of US Airways at the airport? Stupid! This makes no sense to me. And Philly; don’t even get me started. No offense to either city, just surprised these municipalities would have a need so more blogs than DC. At least we have plenty of government shit to blog about here.
This just about say it all:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/blogging.jpg
I think that what the WSJ is trying to say is "we, for one, welcome our new blogger overlords."
ReplyDeleteActually, bloggers are self-congratulatory in exactly the same way that reporters were once upon a time. Bloggers are the Jimmy Olsen to the WSJ's Perry White (or J. Jonah Jameson, if you don't mind mixing comics).