The death of the death of the death of …
March 28th, 2009 |
Paul Dailing writes on HuffPost that he is annoyed with what he calls the “Death of Newspaper bloggers.” He cites posts by Jeff Jarvis, Paul Gillin, Jay Rosen and Clay Shirky who, says Dailing, are
“competing to see who can use the most jargon to describe something everyone knows is happening. Apparently, it’s very simple. The more you self-reference, pick feuds and talk about the failure of TimesSelect, the better you’re doing. If you make it sound like you’re the one who figured out newspapers are dying, you win.”
Dailing is right in identifying this trend and finding it quite annoying. It’s contrived controversy. (How’s that for alliteration?) But of course the winner is not the one who can frame the discussion such that it appears he/she predicted the demise of print, but the one who takes the most in-your-face approach, thereby generating the most links, blog visits and comments, which equate to importance and prestige in the social media world.
There are a handful of reasons, other than “getting into the conversation,” that top bloggers use, and in some cases are addicted to, social media. These include things like reward, recognition, and validation. The CEO of a major IT company, when asked why he continued to work so hard after having made the company and himself a stunning success, responded that it was because he never felt he measured up to his dad’s expectations. Isn’t that why many “A-list” bloggers behave the way they do? To not only measure up, but to receive accolades in the form of tens of thousands of Twitter followers and Feedburner subscribers?
What Dailing has missed is the whole Death Of meme that is so popular with bloggers who have predicted/called for the death of PR, the press release, and surprisingly, blogs themselves. I mean, without a blog, how are you going to blog on the passing of the blog? It bloggles the mind.
I’ve campaigned against this idiotic practice a dozen times. I’ve called for an annual “PR Is Dead” day to celebrate the fact that it isn’t. I’ve begged bloggers to stop declaring the press release dead, motivating me (frighteningly) to pen the only cartoon I have ever drawn.
I even wrote an obituary for the Death Of meme.
It’s time to declare the death of essays discussing the death of things. But sadly, the narcissistic impulse to declare things dead or dying will persist as long as site visits and comments are the measure of a person’s worth.
Tags: Paul Dailing, HuffPost, Huffington Post, Jeff Jarvis, Paul Gillin, Jay Rosen, Clay Shirky, death of meme
| Sphere This |
Good luck with that crusade… as long as “top 10/25/50/100″ lists and “Death of” posts make the front page of digg.com and are those which generate the most inbound traffic? We’ll keep seeing them ad nauseum.
Anytime someone says near me (I don’t even both with ‘to’ any more, the internet is seldom specific in its intended audience) “Social Media killed Newspapers!” I’m hard-pressed not to reply with “Yep! Just like Television killed radio!”
One medium doesn’t necessarily kill another - it simply causes it to adapt or suicide.
Some things are better done in one medium than another. Those “newspapers” which figured out how to adapt to digital mediums and to reinvent their non-digital incarnations? Will survive. Those that have not and do not will not.
Then again, those bloggers you mention above who keep churning out “death of” posts? They’d better quickly figure out a new line or find themselves obsolete when your “death of the death of meme” proves true!
Comment by Lucretia Pruitt — March 29, 2009 @ 3:46 am
Lucretia: I heard someone today refer to “the tyranny of ‘or’ and the liberation of ‘and’” referring to arguments that erroneously assume you must have “or,” that is, print or the internet.
Comment by joel — March 29, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
I personally love discussing the death of things (life, ideologies, systems, etc.). But that has been my M.O. since I was a kid.
The reason many other people are doing it now (people I consider to be the opposite of me — who discuss exhaustively the “death of” a system during these times when they normally wouldn’t) is because (i) they lack creativity or insight to see what is on the horizon as a result of the tremendous restructuring of entire industries worldwide (can’t blame them for that - even the experts are clueless and (ii) it is their way of holding on to the old (discussing it keeps it alive the way they remember it rather than for what it actually is today - whether or not we can articulate it).
The only way to kill the “death of” talk is to present the clear picture of what is going to rise out of the ashes of these systems that are dying (its opposite). Until someone does that (until it becomes clear to everyone what that is) expect more “death of” talk (it might be tiresome, but to the people who perpetuate it, it’s at least a concrete statement upon which to stick their flag of journalism/blogging than discussing the murky future.
Comment by Charlie — March 30, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
I’m usually a big fan of your blog but on this instance I don’t agree.
Yes I talk about the whole newspaper death watch meme quite a lot and to be honest…why shouldn’t I (or anyone else for that matter)?
No, newspapers aren’t going to vanish tomorrow but we all agree the media market is changing beyond recognition.
I would have thought that was a legitimate area for discussion for anyone in brand communications.
Comment by Dirk Singer — March 31, 2009 @ 4:53 am
[...] let’s stop ‘the death of’ stuff. I’m apparently not even the first one to ask for the death of ‘the death of’! Yes, it’s easy to be sensationalistic. [...]
Pingback by The Death Of ‘The Death Of’ « Goodway Blog — November 12, 2009 @ 10:58 am