If We’re to Compete, Bloggernacle Parties Will Have to Get a Lot More Interesting
The best scandals we can come up with is that somebody can’t take the sacrament anymore? Sorry folks, that won’t cut it if we’re going to crack the upper ranks of Technorati. Here’s what we need: a steamy sex scandal involving sex-for-hire and high-ranking Bush administration officials. At least, that’s what the New York Times would have us believe in a recent article. Except that I guess we would need to find some kind of Mormon angle.
Bombings, scandals, polygamy, sex, conspiracies — that’s the kind of Church we need if our missionary work is to have any success in today’s world. Now, come on folks — give us the goods to make this blog hit the big time! Anybody have a salamander tell them to become a private dancer?
As I read the linked New York Times article it occurred to me that as blogging spreads and becomes more and more popular, new social rules might arise. Or perhaps old social rules (regarding privacy) might be largely destroyed. At least the rules of many social interactions will be re-negotiated somehow.
I can imagine that it could become common for people who date to ask one another, on the first date, whether they have blogs and whether it will be acceptable to blog about dating experiences. And I can also imagine that during the course of a dating relationship (for example, if it turns sour) that the original discussions and rules could change.
I can also imagine that in five or ten years, many people who date will google-search the names, nicknames, etc. of the person they are dating, to double-check or verify whether or not a partner has a blog.
Comment by danithew — December 18, 2004 @ 11:43 pm
That is almost exactly what JL said she was doing in her recent entry about blogging about her dates: she set the ground rules. I loved that entry…she stated her boundaries very clearly. My favorite line: “… if you’re my boyfriend and you don’t want to end up on here then you’ll have to marry me.”
Comment by Ann — December 19, 2004 @ 10:13 am
I think some conspiracy would shake things up.
After I posted something on OT about RLDS leader Grant McMurray’s recent resignation (subsequent to some undisclosed personal problems), even though I of course avoided any tabloidal speculation, I got a bunch of google traffic from titillation-seekers looking for “grant mcmurray embezzle,” “grant mcmurray adultery,” “grant mcmurray pr0nography,” etc.
Comment by Jeremy — December 19, 2004 @ 1:06 pm
Well, we did sort of toss around that moneymaking idea at D.’s party–something about filmmaking, as I recall.
Comment by Kristine — December 19, 2004 @ 9:29 pm
Oops! I forgot about that…! Hee hee!!
Comment by Steve Evans — December 19, 2004 @ 9:47 pm
Why not simply use headlines that only tangentially reflect the content of the story. For example, the occasionally obligatory post about abortion rights might be entitled, “Mormon Love Triangle leads to abortion and possibly murder.”
Sure, you’d lose credibility. But you’d gain readers. Isn’t this what freedom of the press is all about?
Comment by David King Landrith — December 20, 2004 @ 12:05 am
DKL, I’m really not sure how we can lose any credibility.
Comment by Steve Evans — December 20, 2004 @ 9:18 am
Steve Evens, that’s great! That means that nothing is holding you back but your own imagination.
Comment by David King Landrith — December 20, 2004 @ 10:38 am
My wife recently discovered my blog. It’s been interesting to read her comments. It has made me think differently each time I post. Which I find intriguing, because I’ve never posted anything that would offend her, but I find myself wanting to look it over twice before I post it. Curious, huh?
MRKH
Comment by Mark Hansen — December 20, 2004 @ 4:04 pm
Steve, I can think of one way that BCC: could lose credibility. Invite me to guest-blog.
Comment by danithew — December 20, 2004 @ 4:31 pm
I stand corrected — Danithew is right.
Comment by Steve Evans — December 20, 2004 @ 4:59 pm
I beg to differ. I remember when he guest-blogged at T&S.
Comment by David King Landrith — December 20, 2004 @ 5:24 pm
I’ve got a quick question for Steve. For some reason when I type in bycommonconsent.com (instead of http://www.bycommonconsent.com) I get sent to godaddy.com. I think that’s a problem. I should be able to type in just bycommonconsent.com and get your blog. The same thing happens with kulturblog.com.
This feels to me like some kind of issue with godaddy that could probably be addressed fairly easily by contacting them. I assume they are the ones you purchased the domain name from in the first place.
Comment by danithew — December 20, 2004 @ 7:36 pm
How ’bout Mormon gambling…this from bullmooseblog.com
“Doolittle, a Mormon, is an ardent opponent of casino gambling, so it is somewhat ironic that he would invite supporters to watch the Wizards play the Sacramento Kings from an MCI Center suite paid for by casino-rich Indian tribes. But the plaque at the door to Suite 204 did not say Chitimacha or Choctaw. It said “Jack Abramoff,” a name synonymous with largesse and influence in the GOP-controlled Congress.”
Comment by jh — December 27, 2004 @ 9:42 am