Why I continue blogging; and happy trails to Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan’s note telling readers he plans to stop blogging.

Occasionally I wonder whether I blog too much and consider whether I should stop, cut back or change directions.

I identified with some of the things that Andrew Sullivan said when announced this week that he will stop blogging. Even as a sideline venture, as my blog has always been, a blog keeps whispering “feed me” in your ear. You read or hear things and start thinking about blogging about them, even if you only actually blog about a small minority of them. If you care about a blog, it becomes demanding or time-consuming. If becomes a big part of your life, and sometimes you need to make changes in your life.

Sullivan wrote:

I want to read again, slowly, carefully. I want to absorb a difficult book and walk around in my own thoughts with it for a while. I want to have an idea and let it slowly take shape, rather than be instantly blogged.

He posted that on Wednesday. I feel like a slacker for waiting till Saturday to blog about it. So many people have already weighed in:

• Ezra Klein wrote about how blogging has changed under Vox and other media startups.
• Josh Benton reviewed Sullivan’s blogging history and importance.
• Mathew Ingram wrote about the evolution of blogging.
• Ana Marie Cox analyzed our the evolution of blogging and whether the term even fits any more.

Sullivan’s reasons for deciding to stop blogging are deeply personal, related to his health and feelings about how he wants to spend his time and about feeding the beast that a blog can become (he started charging for The Dish two years ago, which no doubt raises the pressure for feeding the beast; my blog is free).

Each blogger’s situation is different by many factors: what you have to say; your relationship with the people who respond to your blog; how unique or important you think a particular post may be; how frequently you want or need to blog; whether you blog for pay, passion or both; whether and how the blog is advancing your career; other things going on with your life, such as jobs, health and family.

I have kept blogging through several career and personal turns because I always felt like I had something to say and I have enjoyed my relationships with people in the blog comments, on social media and in person who appreciate my blog (including many who disagree on some points). And the blog has advanced my career and raised my profile within journalism.

Read Full Post »

The New York Times leadership challenge (whoever the leader is): changing the culture

Packing, throwing out old stuff (files & cookies) as I move into a new office as exec editor. Excited & nervous. pic.twitter.com/QkaKl0t

— Jill Abramson (@JillAbramson) August 31, 2011

Belated thoughts on the big developments at the New York Times recently:

I have started twice in the past week to blog about developments at the New York Times. First, I was going to blog about the initial report of the Times Innovation Team, which raised lots of issues for all newsrooms trying to transform digitally. Digital transformation has been the focus of my work at Digital First Media, and I was going to draw some lessons from the Times recommendations for Project Unbolt.

Then I was going to blog about the firing of Jill Abramson as executive editor of the New York Times. I will post some observations about Abramson later in this piece, but I doubt I can add much insight beyond what’s already been written.

Mostly, I want to call my DFM colleagues’ attention (and the attention of everyone trying to change the culture of entrenched print newsrooms) to the full report of the innovation team (leaked to Buzzfeed and both more blunt and more detailed than the summary report). You should read the full report (you can ignore the sanitized version). Then you should read Josh Benton’s piece on Nieman Lab.

Read Full Post »

Read ‘Post-Industrial Journalism;’ I’ll comment on it shortly

I encourage you to read Post-Industrial Journalism: Adapting to the Present, released Tuesday by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University.

I started reading it last night and I’m far enough in to say that it’s good and should stimulate some conversation and thought among journalists, and hopefully lead to some change. But I may not have time to finish it and blog about it for a few days. Josh Benton of the Nieman Lab and Jeff Sonderman of Poynter have already blogged some thoughts on it. Update: So has Mathew Ingram.

Emily Bell, who wrote the report with Clay Shirky and C.W. Anderson, interviewed me in the process of working on the report.

Read Full Post »