Billmon writes of "the idea of blogging as a grass-roots challenge to the increasingly sanitized "content" peddled by the... [corporate] media oligopoly." In this essay, for Billmon the importance of the Blogosphere is it's superior, challenging, subversive content. The entire essay is filled with this notion (emphasis in all quotes mine). He praises the "articulate, querulous and sometimes profane voices from the Internet hinterland" (paragraph four) that filled his blog with comments, together creating a "culture of dissent." (paragraph five) Comparing blogging to forms of aesthetic or cultural expression, he writes in paragraph seven: Discussing a panel discussion on blogs at an economic conference, he writes "[T]he idea of buying a blog struck me as funny, like trying to buy a conversation." (paragraph thirteen) Finally, at the end of the piece, he notes: The emphasis here is on voice, culture, speech, conversation and content. In Billmon's formulation, the primary divergence between the Blogosphere and existing media is aesthetic and stylistic. Blogs provided a populist, subversive and edgy outlet for discussion and contemplation of real issues, while the media oligopoly slowed moved toward the production of sanitized, safe, arrogant and content-less discourse.

This is a view of the Blogosphere I do not share, and have never shared. For me, the primary difference between the Blogosphere and the media oligopoly is simply not the content and register of our discourse, but instead the function of that discourse. In particular, these days our discussions almost invariably are not ends in and of themselves. Instead, while pundits of the media oligopoly work to inform (at which they do a terrible job), we work to agitate. While they supposedly labor toward objectivity (and fail miserably), we clearly labor toward subjectivity, agency and direct political action. For me, it is not about creating an alternative avenue for edgy discursive expression. Instead, it is about organizing and effectively channeling the activism of the people who take part in and witness those discussions. In this respect, the Blogosphere has never been more alive than it is right now.

This is a crucial difference that I feel is often lost and difficult to notice. Certainly the stylistic and content differences Billmon notices are undeniably important aspects of the Blogosphere. However, if better content was all that separated the media oligopoly from the Blogosphere, then what took place here would not really be very important. If we were just a congenial, stimulating group of policy wonks and horserace obsessives, in the end we would accomplish nothing except more stimulating reporting for a small, technologically savvy "elite." If we can work to uncover the truth, then it only serves to improve our agitation. If we are accurate in our analysis, then it only serves to improve the effectiveness of our action.

I don't think Billmon recognizes this difference. Concerning all the press bloggers are receiving, he writes "even as it [the Blogosphere] collectively achieves celebrity status for its anti-establishment views, blogging is already being domesticated by its success." I don't think that blogs are becoming famous because of their anti-establishment views. Instead, I think it is quite clear that blogs are becoming famous when they actually accomplish something. We rant and rave about the establishment on a daily basis, but it is only when we organize huge rallies for Dean, raise large sums of money for candidates, help expose a major news story, and gather huge readerships that blogs receive much press. Our actions have gained us our notoriety.

It is in this way that the "commercialization" of the blogosphere is not a sign of the decline of the blogosphere, but rather quite the opposite. Considering that the vast majority of advertisers on most political sites are not looking to increase their bottom line (though that does happen), but instead are aiming to accomplish specific political goals, the advertisements are an extension of the Blogosphere's political action and agitation. Rather than being a sign that it is time to give last rites to political blogs, instead it is a sign of the ripening maturity of blogs and the degree to which their activism is actively courted by and coordinating with existing political structures. Interest groups and campaigns are now able to tap into the activism found within blog communities by directly appealing to an influential, highly active segment of the population for votes, donations, petition signatures, volunteers, and any number of other ways to increase their organization strength. It has become clear to people that blogs can make a difference, and are not just a group of people chatting over coffee.

As someone who is rapidly becoming a professional rather than an amateur blogger myself, I don't lament the old days. The more time I can give toward political action, the more effective I feel my action will be. Purely spontaneous, amateur, mass action is the ideal of many lefties and many Americans. However, as someone who worked as a professional organizer before I became a blogger I also know just how much harder it is to accomplish things under that model. If the Democratic Party wasn't paying any of its field operatives, I would be first in line to try and raise money for them to live and do their work full-time. While in-house volunteers are the backbone of all unions, without professional organizers and union dues, union membership in this country would drop by 90% in one year.

Any belief that the political Blogosphere was going to unceremoniously raze the corporate media Tower of Babble to the ground is an unfortunate rehashing of 1990's-style Internet Utopianism. While I do not think this is what Billmon is arguing, he does seem to be disheartened both by the presence of any money in the medium whatsoever and by the presence of any similarity between blog writing and the content produced by the national media.

I feel that working with existing institutions to achieve our shared goals helps all parties involved. To lament the past is to lament being powerless. I never want to go back to 2002 or early 2003.