Setting the Tone for Blogging filters

This came to me on the train this morning - I was thinking about which tech blogs I like to read, and why, and how you might structure "what sort of blog are they" into a filter system - and then this simple 2x2 came to me:



The 2 axes I thought of are the:

- Tone of blog - is it continually breatlessly awestruck by whatever new new thing is emerging or perpetually cynical?
- Content of blog - is it part of the echo chamber, or is it giving out original thoughts

This led to 4 quadrants - so, and my thoughts on them, starting from the "Sweet Spot 2.0" :

(i) Original thought, but perpetually awestruck. This - in my opinion - is the path to "Gurudom 2.0", you are leading the way in saying what everyone desperately wants to hear. The two problems with it (I find anyway) are:
- I think it is to an extent intellectually dishonest - they must know that this stuff isn't always so shiny shiny - mustn't they?
- it ages fast - the lack of a critical aspect shows the writer to be naive in hindsight, and this is a fast moving industry.

Still, it works - its arguably the best way to clamber up the Blog Influence ladder.

(ii) Echo Chamber, Continually Awestruck - I look at these and think "whats the point" but in reality this is the A list blogger equivalent of a fan base, at worst they are the blog groupies. By and large harmless, but - as we have experienced - if you ever disagree with a Blog Guru or a Current Trend, these are the blogs that will attack you directly. This allows the Gurus to stand above the fray, so they have their uses.

(iii) EchoChamber, Perpetually Negative - Precisely because there is so much hype and snake oil in any bubble that running around with a pin pricking all the bubblemes is an easy gig. Possibly they serve the purpose of the Jester, but because the tone is resolutely cynical but without adding anything new, its sort of like candy - a bit of it is wonderful, but, like Private Eye its best taken in small doses or else its tales of the Valley wind up wagging your blogging dog

(iv) Original Thought, Perpetually Negative - in a way I admire these most - they are getting up there and saying stuff that is unpopular or unpalatable, and backing it up with sound, original argument. Over time though, they risk being ignored by the Faithful (always too negative) and even by the neutral as its the easier gig - the Accuntants play - see the price in everything, but not the value. One person I really do admire here is Nick Carr - perpetually curmudgeonly, but always soundly argued and thought provoking

Over time I find myself inclining to the right in my reading, and whereas once i sought out the bottom corner to run a counterpoint, I am increasingly of the opinion that that is where "realism" lies, as I think Gurudom 2.0 does risk breeding a sort of "Optimism Arms Race" - who can pimp the new new thing better, faster, further?

And what about Broadstuff, I hear you ask?

I think we have over time become more sceptical in the flow, (though it may just be we've stayed the same as optimism inflates?) - the analytical part of me (or the Santayana's Law part that went through Web 1.0 ) just knows that much of the New New stuff is pan-glossing over reality - but I'd like to think we do it with a sense of fun - "wittily sceptical" would be the aim. Whether this is the "correct" tone for a sober, mature New Media consultancy is unclear - but its by far the most fun to write

Also, I know how hard it is to continually provide original thought, and my respect for those of all persuasions who do has increased over the time we've been doing Broadstuff. Our standards have slipped to doing some original thought - one a week if we can - but also commenting on what is going around - the rule we try to follow though is only to comment if we know something about the area from real work we have done.

Oh, and if I could write half as well as the Economist does, I'd die happy

I guess in a way the risk is we sit in the space of the stuff I like to read the most now, so for diversity I now try harder to reach outside it.

Be fascinated to hear others thought (i) on what you think / like, (ii) how you might filter it and (iii) of what you think we could do better / differently.