Big Popularity Contest

Clive Thompson, writing in New York Magazine, describes the hard reality of blogging and how difficult it is to break through to large readerships. Flowery ideas about the meritocrisy of the blogosphere do not jibe with the cold reality that most people only have time to read A-List blogs like Instapundit, Kos, or even the Huffington Post ... the last of which recently attained prominance through celebrity clout and corporate backing.

Most of us are deligated to the B- and C-lists, with only a few regular viewers and zero chance of actual income. Not that revenue should matter, of course. Every blogger claims loudly and self-servingly that it's about the art. But privately a few will admit that a few cools Gs in pocket as compensation for their efforts would be appreciated. Mostly, though, we want mass adoration for our brilliance.

Blogging is still a dirt-cheap way to attain media karma, but connections and influence are crucial. Yes, you must deliver wit and analysis and update your site relentlessly with new and fresh material. And you can beg and pray for the golden ticket - Glenn or Andrew or one of the other A-listers linking inbound to your blog with some "Here's an insightful observation" type of accolade. But even with all of the stars aligned you might attract only a few thousand readers at best, and percolate slowly to the bottom of the middle.

I used to have more faith in the local blogosphere. But any time spent looking at websites like Cincinnati Blog, The Beacon, or Nate Livingston reveal very little interest in what other bloggers have to say. They're pleased to hawk their opinions, which usually take the form of a endless, ruthless critique of public officials and local media giants. But clippings from other weblogs are almost nonexistent, with the exception of merciless "Looks like [Insert Blogger's Name] said something else crazy again." character slams. I've been the subject of a few of these myself, and my reaction generally falls between amusement and indifference.

Frankly - and I know this is stirring the pot - but all of the above bloggers have one thing in common. They are all extremely aggressive liberals. Nate in particular seems to rant constantly and humorlessly (and to be fair, Brian Griffin is getting more evenhanded). But in contrast, Nixguy and the other conservatives in the "Southern Ohio" group are much more generous with linkage back and forth to each other and building on shared analysis.

Inevitably someone will claim that these are conservatives "marching in lockstep". But the question remains - why don't the Lefties do a better job helping each other along? Can the karma be shared, or is it always ultimately a matter of becoming the alpha dog?