Comments on: Blog coverage

By: dog 2

dog 2 — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:36:34 +0000

I just did a quick search on Westlaw’s News data bank. 3698 news documents reference either weblogs or blogs. In the last three days, alone, weblogs or blogs were referenced by—among others—the Los Angleles Times, the Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, the Seattle Post, USA Today, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the Charlotte Observer, Newsday, and the Austin American Statesman. The earliest reference I found was in the January 1, 2001, Orange County Register. (Is it widely known that Orange County is populated by conservative Republicans?) It was listed as the first of “this year’s buzzwords.” “Blog—Short for ‘Weblog,” a software program that allows people to post entries in online journals about whatever strikes their fancy. Sort of like reading your sister’s diary. Only horrifyingly boring.” Much like Orange County!

By: jkottke

jkottke — Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:01:54 +0000

You should add “web log” to your next analysis. Somewhere along the line, major media outlets decided to start misusing “web log” (instead of the proper “weblog”) as the origin of “blog”, resulting in the usage of “web log” in many stories where “weblog” would be more correct.

By: Anna

Anna — Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:40:59 +0000

In the “The Times, they will have a’changed” dept, this recent WaPo article on kids on the web (Generation WWW: Kids Create Web Sites – http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19006-2004Mar23?language=printer ) goes on and on about the subject without covering weblogs at all – except for one “and he has a blog” – no explanation or definition – near the end. I can’t decide if it’s evidence for ubiquity (of course all readers will know what “blog” means!) or blindness…

By: eszter

eszter — Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:40:43 +0000

Belaborer – I think a very small percentage of the general Internet user population even knows what blogs are never mind actually reads them. It would be interesting to see survey data on this, but I know of none. I’m about to put a survey in the field and I wish I had more resources to explore this question a bit, but as I said, this isn’t the focus of my research and so it’s hard to find room for it.

By: eszter

eszter — Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:26:49 +0000

I think it’s worth noting when it was still 0/0, but I have no idea why I picked 1995 as the first year to check when I started all this last year. That does seem a bit arbitrary. It should either start at 1993 (Web history) or just say 1997. I’ll try to remember next year when I update this.. if I ever do.

By: belaborer

belaborer — Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:26:46 +0000

I have grad student-type friends, and almost none of them read blogs. A few have faintly heard of the concept. But I believe that a year from now, all will have heard the term, and many will read blogs occasionally. It’s definitely coming. But five years further out, who can predict? The medium might change completely.

By: nnyhav

nnyhav — Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:19:33 +0000

Dunno if this is the earliest cite (online OED may tell ya, sense 2, per a.f.u.; my access is unattainably devoid), but your “1995-1997” (0,0) may be superfluous.