Why Does Newsarama Need Blogs, Anyway?

Seriously, I don't know why having a blog section is absolutely necessary for Newsarama at this point. Or necessary for Wizard, for that matter. Or necessary for any online news outlet -- unless that outlet understands what a blog is for and how you nurture it.

The first thing I learned in Social Media PR 101 is that not every company or website needs a blog. You know, I may have a client like "Regent Tea Cookies" and they will ask me if having a regular blog will help them.

Dude, who is going to go to a "Regent Tea Cookies" blog? How do you make that exciting?

And I'm like, unless you want me to do a Howard Stern routine on your Regent Tea Cookies blog, there's not a lot I can do about getting you traffic. Instead, I would advise one of two things:

1) Just keep a really simple company-based blog and post press releases, highlights, and simple personal things. "Our merchandising manager Holly just had her baby." Post a picture of the baby. It's low-key, and will not bring your blog tons of hits. But it humanizes your company, and keeps people up-to-date.

2) Have "Regent Tea Cookies" sponsor a blog on a relevant subject. For example, a blog about awesome snacks. The key there is to make sure the blog is a damn blog -- a blog people would really want to read.

Now, here is the big secret, friends: in order to get great blog content, you need to pay the bloggers. You need to pay the bloggers. You need to pay the bloggers for good content.

People make a living blogging excellent posts for clients. My friend Jessica is one such person. It is not a hobby for her, though she also maintains a "hobby" type blog for herself.

People pay Jessica to blog because she's really, really talented, and her posts are an asset to her clients.

Now, there is another way to "pay" your bloggers. It's through the currency of Publicity. This can be a very lucrative joint venture as long as each person understands what they are getting out of it. But it is not as stable as actually being paid. Especially if your blogger, who is being paid through the publicity of writing on your site, is so good that he or she receives opportunities elsewhere.

Another issue is: will the blog in question serve the needs of the site it is hosted on, or will it necessarily run counter to those needs?

I have nothing against Newsarama. But they, by their own admission, focus largely on the positive side of comics. That's fine. But as we see on the TV news every day, there is a portion of news that is not positive. Similarly, there is a portion of comics that are not good. There are things that happen in the comics industry that are not good.

That doesn't mean Newsarama should focus on the negative like the TV news does. But you can't have Paul Levitz be your "blogger" and then also have a blogger who rips DC's major event a new bung-hole. I mean, certainly you could -- but I find it unlikely.

But why does Newsarama need to put themselves in that position at all? I don't get it. Why not have the people blogging for them now just write articles and columns? By insisting on having these blogs, they are bringing this negative scrutiny and publicity upon themselves.

Newsarama, through Imaginova, is clearly trying to position itself as some sort of comic-focused but generally pop-culture-driven Entertainment Weekly thing. That's fine. I don't see why they should be attacked for that. They do a good job in terms of what function their site serves -- which is an entertainment news source.

But I think they should leave the blogging to other blogs and blog collectives. It's like, I don't read EW for their reviews and opinions. Because they're run by Time Warner, and I consider it a conflict of interest. But I still enjoy EW.

Two more quick points:

1) I don't know if the current bloggers at Newsarama are getting paid -- and if so, what type of wage. My observations regarding the need for proper payment of bloggers concern the blogging field in general, and are not meant to comment on the specific situation at Newsarama.

2) I certainly don't want to see the new bloggers at Newsarama lose their blogs. I mean, I don't know what Paul Levitz would do if he didn't have this forum for his personal self-expression. I'm only suggesting that these "blogs" get official articles and columns within the body of the general Newsarama output. By doing so, I think, the writers would get more exposure and more readers anyway. And in resumes, it still looks better to have that you were a columnist or reporter for some media outlet than a "blogger."

3) Look, I wasn't crazy with occasional posts at the old Blog@Newsarama starting some shit about something I wrote that ended up giving me tons of grief on my own site. But still -- that's what blogs are sometimes for. To piss me the hell off.

Guess What Story Is On The "Front Page" Of Newsarama?

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/080612-DixonNoDC.html

Good article.

Quick thought on the new Newsarama

I think the problem with the new Newsarama is that when a story breaks like Chuck Dixon suddenly not at DC anymore, they should have that on their front page. I should be able to go right now to their site and see it as a link. And even if there isn't a lot of solid news surrounding the story at the moment besides his terse statement on the forum, there should be something -- a recap of all he's done, of his current projects -- and yes, even speculation. Not "hard-journalism" enough for you? CNN speculates all the time. They can fill out whole hours based on one line and tons of speculation.

Yeah, Newsarama has their blog covering Dixon -- that little box you have to scroll all the way back down to the bottom of the page to access.

Everything else is like: press junket, press junket, link bait, press junket. And when they have something like about how DC should learn from Marvel in the movie biz, they have to slap a big "OP/ED" on it.

News doesn't have to be this bloodless.

To me, news is: "here is the shit, can you believe this shit, here is shit we are speculating about the shit, here are these people we brought in who are going to give their own views of the shit, and here are the viewer comments on the shit. holy shit!"

CNN does this all the time. Take a look at their website sometime. But, you know, CNN is supposed to be "legit."

If I want hard news on comics, I'll go pick up Comics Journal. Seriously. Entertain me, Newsarama. Inform me but entertain me too. Or at least give your blog a more prominent place on the site. That tiny generic button on the top navigation is not doing it.

Hm, methinks this was more than just a quick thought.

What Type Of Comic News Site Do You Prefer?

After looking at the new Newsarama, which is great but looks like the new CBR and the old Wizard, a question popped into my head: what type of comic book news website do you all prefer to read your comic news at?

Factors:

* lots of graphics, or less graphics and faster load time?

* only comic book coverage or more general pop-culture coverage?

* more columns, or more hard news stories?

* do you want more opinionated, edgy investigative reporting?

* do you fancy gossip columns, rumors, and spoilers?

* more interviews? more spontaneous/less scripted interviews?

* would you like to have the comic creators/editors speak directly to you in opinion pieces?

* do you crave more objectivity or subjectivity in the reporting?

* do you want more of a spread in terms of genres, or are you mostly interested in superheroes?

* what do you think of columnists/reporters who work for free as opposed to those paid on staff? do you think the fact of being paid encourages the writer in question to do better work?

* do Google ads pee on your parade?

* would you be interested in having regular readers give their own opinions in column of their own? should there be more opportunities for reader participation in general?

* what is your favorite comics or pop-culture news site? what site do you go to to get all your breaking comics news? or is it a mix?

* what do you dislike most in a comics news site?

* more cowbell? less cowbell?

Conflict Of Interest In Comics Media

I really don't know if I'm part of "comics media" per se -- or, really, part of "comics journalism" proper. I sort of see the blog as more of a personal opinion thing. But yeah, it is some sort of "media."

As time goes on -- and as my (re)involvement in the comic book book industry grows -- I find it harder and harder to be as bold in my opinions as I used to be. Some of it is because, "well, you're the president of Friends of Lulu, you can't say THAT, you have to be non-divisive." Some of it will be cases where I might hate aspects of a comic, but am friends with a person connected with the comic in some fashion. Some of it may be, "well, they never pissed in my iced tea, I'm giving them a break." And so on and so on, some reasons perhaps not as unselfish as the acts of Gandhi, but none so cynical as those pro-penis enlargement blog posts with the words "sponsored by Acme Penis Enlargement Company" below it.

This situation, in my view, affects large swathes of the comics media -- but really affects a great deal of people in the world in general who rely on social networks. Sure, John the Baptist was the lone voice howling in the wilderness -- but he lived in the wilderness and wore animal skins. Of course, the Olsen Twins wear animal skins as well, but it's not quite the same thing.

Also, John the Baptist got his head cut off, which sucks.

The paradox is that I think today's society -- especially those who are glued to the Internet -- are so tired of spin that they actually crave ANYONE and ANYTHING that sounds authentic and real.

And the irony is that the more successful one is at being "real," and getting an audience, and getting attention -- the more likely things will get watered down, because that social network grows, and the conflicts of interest start.

For instance, I really idolized Dennis Miller in my teens. I liked the way he thumbed his nose at society. I thought he was a radical (of course, I was 17, so maybe my education as to radicals in modern society was rather limited). Then he sort of became a conservative. Then he co-hosted Monday Night Football. Now he's a game show host. What. The. F**k?

Now, the problem with the comic book community in regards to this topic is that it is damned tiny. So sometimes it feels that trying to write something halfway controversial about anything without stepping on anyone's toes is like attempting to breakdance in a small antique shop filled with old china.

Of course, don't pity me. Pity Newsarama, Wizard, et al. Pity the reviewers at Entertainment Weekly faced with doing a write-up on some horrendous bomb for Warner Bros.

On second thought, do pity me -- that donut I got at the Farmer's Market this morning just gave me the runs.

Where I suggest you can *really* find that raw, cutting style of reviews and commentary is in one of the many of the excellent blogs out there untainted with personal involvement with the industry. Go to Journalista and Dirk will point 'em out to ya.

And, just for the record, though I mentioned the comics media, and particularly Newsarama & Wizard, in this post, I mean no ill-will or criticism to any. I mean, Newsarama is the comics industry's #1 source for daily comic book news, previews, reviews and commentary, and is home to the largest comic book reader message board community on the Internet, with discussions ranging from Marvel Comics' X-Men and DC Comics' Superman to manga and the smallest indy publishers. And Wizard Magazine is the #1 men’s pop-culture magazine, providing comics and entertainment fans with everything they need to know about comic books, movies, TV, video games, DVDs and more. Full-color graphics, in-depth interviews, behind-the-scenes features and a fun, light-hearted tone combine to provide the ultimate experience for Wizard's passionate community of fans.

Ok, I'm going to tempt fate and eat that other Farmer's Market donut now. Wish me luck.

Comics Journalism Redux

Sequential Tart's Katherine Keller has wrote an interesting editorial regarding the "comics journalism" debate. She feels that too much emphasis in that discussion is placed on investigative journalism as opposed to journalism in general. Basically, that investigative journalism does not automatically = Journalism; it's just one facet of it. Moreover:

Right now, based on "partying with the stars" (sheah, right) I've heard some very interesting things about the day-to-day workings of things at DC, Dark Horse, and Marvel. I've also sat in while one up-and-coming creator vented about about his dealings with one of Comics' most famous creators regarding how things were swiftly going down the toilet regarding a jointly owned and created character, as well as what really happened to spur his departure from a top 30 book. Juicy stuff indeed. And I could write all that up and send Sequential Tart's hits sky high and fly the "Investigative Journalism" flag, but in the end, who benefits?

I've just burnt bridges before me.

I've just cost several people their jobs.

And the fanbois and fangurls will find something else to read tomorrow.

True. But.

I think there is a place for investigative journalism -- or, as Keller jokes (I think), "Investigative Muckraking."

One can argue, for example, that the pundits who rather loudly and frankly complain about Dan DeCarlo not getting his due credit for the Archie Comics properties he created are "muckraking." Such complaints stir up bad feelings. Archie Comics are made for smiles and cheers. Why cause trouble?

But the story of Dan DeCarlo is an important one. I like reading Archie Comics AND I care about the story of Dan DeCarlo. What do I do? Do I "make nice" or do I ask hard questions or do I try to balance it?

And would it be better or worse to have serious investigative journalists hired to gather information & interviews about that and other topics than to have to rely solely on a multitude of bloggers who might or might not have the facts?

I have a business card with my cute picture on it (coincidently drawn by an "Archie" artist) and it lists me as a Writer, Editor, and Journalist.

But am I really a journalist?

I took one Journalism course in college. Wrote obituaries for 1/4 of the course. My teacher was the guy who wrote the book the movie "Blow" is based on.

I got an A. I struggled. Real journalism is a lot of work.

Has anything I've written been "real journalism?" Was "Goodbye To Comics" "investigative journalism?"

Maybe. "Goodbye To Comics" was memoir and drama. It was something heartfelt and spontaneous. Can that be considered journalism?

Before I wrote those posts, I had approached a few comic book media types for their advice about my personal story. And while they were all very nice to me, and I appreciated their time and their candor, it was not something they wanted to report on.

And, seeing the vacuum -- sitting on the story, ready to explode -- I stepped in and did it myself.

I did it myself because it was either me doing it or nothing.

Maybe blogs are the alternative journalism.

Maybe they are journalism.

What is journalism?

And is that sort of "investigative journalism" -- or memoir or whatever the hell you call it -- referred to in the Sequential Tart article worth the price you pay for it?

Was it worth it for me?

It was totally worth it.

You have one life to live. Be real. Be yourself. Talk about things that matter. Make life better for the people around you. Speak up. Share.