Blogs aren’t dead because they didn’t exist to begin with

I had an interesting back-and-forth on Twitter with Andrew Keen (@ajkeen) after he posted a tweet that roughly read, “Blogs aren’t dying – they’re dead.”

I tweeted back something about them not being dead and included a link to an earlier post of mine that sorta, kinda (but not really) touched on the subject. Anyway, the upshot of it all was this tweet he sent,

let’s purge word “blog”. It’s archaic & meaningless. New thing is “real-time communications”. I want to broadcast in real-time

I agree completely. And that’s why this post is titled Blogs aren’t dead because they didn’t exist to begin with. The stereotypes of bloggers and the technology of blog tools are confused with what blogs actually are, and that’s why I say blogs didn’t exist to begin with.

There is a lot of misleading baggage attached to the word “blog” and, I believe, it results in many people not understanding what a blog is, which is a way to communicate. They seem to think a blog differs from a web site. It doesn’t. Yes, there may be some technical features that make it differ from a traditional site, but they’re irrelevant when you think of what a blog does.

It’s a bit like the guy who buys his first barbecue and loves it. “Ovens are dead!” he announces. “Kitchens will change to accommodate barbecues or be replaced by something better!”

The truth is this: be it an oven or a barbecue, both are tools for preparing food. Period. Just tools.

But we hear how social networking tools, like a Twitter, are replacing blogs. “Blogs are dead!” So life, now, must be discussed in 140 characters or less. (The end of civilization! The death of thought!)

Good grief. We live in a world so in love with polarization that everything has to be either/or. The tools can’t support one another. They can’t have complementary purposes. No, it’s this or that. And that leads to ridiculous articles like this one.

Whether it’s a blog post, a web page, an article in a newspaper, a chapter in a book … all are communication. What you want to communicate and to whom should determine the method you use. The most recent tools, social networking tools, are particularly effective at communicating quickly, in “real-time.”

The tools, like a Twitter, aren’t so effective when it comes to long form communication. That’s partly why I say the either/or approach is silly. The tools can and should be supportive. You have something lengthy to communicate? Use a blog. Once posted, let people know about it and where it is using Twitter.

I wish people would stop declaring the “death of everything” and think about what the tools are, what they do, what they best facilitate and – I may be pushing the envelope here – how they might be used to support one another so each is used to its best effect.

Please, no more “either/or.”

In the meantime, I will continue to use Twitter, Facebook, blogs and those most ancient of artifacts, books.