D.C. Reads Blogs

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 05:00


One of the sentiments I saw expressed during yesterday's meta discussions is that "no one in D.C. reads blogs anyway." This idea has been phrased both in a cynical / depressive manner ("no one who matters is reading us, so what does it all matter anyway?") and in somewhat nastier terms ("no one who matters reads Open Left, so Open Left doesn't matter.") Well, rest assured that Washington D.C. has, by a long way, the most political blog readers, per capita, of any city in the country.

Take Open Left as an example. Google Analytics reports that, since July 11th, 2007, the day we installed the service on our website, there have been 8,597,437 visits to Open Left, and 2,551,798 absolute unique visitors (and 16,788,540 page views, fwiw).  Among states, the District of Columbia (not the metro area, just the District itself) actually ranks 7th, with 317,460 visits, behind only, in order, California, New York (a surprisingly close second), Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Among cities, only New York City has more visits to Open Left, with 462,980 visits between Manhattan and Brooklyn combined. Manhattan and Brooklyn have, however, about 8 times the population of Washington, D.C.

If you take the typical 30% ratio between visits to Open Left and absolute unique visits to Open Left, then there have been about 105,000 unique visits to Open Left in Washington, D.C. over the past 19 months. If you further consider that only about 27% of the 700,000 jobs in Washington, D.C. are related to politics, that is roughly half of all D.C. political employees. Now, consider that Open Left consistently ranks about 15-20th in terms of audience size among progressive political blogs--and that the progressive blogs larger than us are often vastly larger--and you start to get a grasp of just how frequently political blogs are read in Washington, D.C.

Political blogging, especially progressive political blogging, is a major news medium in Washington, D.C.  On a per capita basis, progressive political blogs are more frequently read in D.C. than anywhere else--and by a long, long way.  People in D.C. are reading what you post here.  How much of an impact it has is entirely open to question, but it is getting read.

Chris Bowers :: D.C. Reads Blogs

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
D.C. Reads Blogs | 12 comments
Wow, numbers! (4.00 / 1)
Sometimes you can tell a post or an idea has an impact because you see more or less the same thing about a week later in, say, the New York Times.  Possibly a coincidence, of course, but probably not.  And then a week later two pundits repeat it.

Whether that makes any difference is another question again.


Comparisons (4.00 / 1)
The influence of several rightwing DC area publications far exceeds their circulation.  The Weekly Standard has a curculation of 83,000 but routinely has its pundits on the tube.  The Washington Times circulation is 95,000 (although at least it is a daily).  Otoh, both Time and Newsweek have circulations over 3.2 million and US News is over 2 million.

Is there an easy comparison with the blogs.  Page views and percentage of internet traffic as on Alexa does not make a clean comparison.  It is worth noting that Huffington Post ranks behind the NY Times and Washington Post on the net but ahead of all other newspapers including the two circulation giants, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal.  Personally, I read it once and found it boring but that's why the net has so many active sites.


That was a patently absurd argument for anyone to make. (4.00 / 2)
How was it imagined that you would end up on Chris Matthews?

   When I was in advertising we read blogs in reference to our products all the time. You'd be an effin' moron to not avail yourself of what, at its absolute very least, amounts to an free focus group. It's an absolute no brainer.


Reality-based information (4.00 / 2)
One of the theories that undergirds progressive thought is that humans are smart, that is, they learn from others and they will accept good ideas (those that work in the real world) and reject bad ideas. OpenLeft is filled with good ideas presented in an articulate way. I'm not at all surprised that it is very influential.

Clearly, OpenLeft will not appeal to those who are looking for propaganda that reinforces their prejudices (that's what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the rest of the corporate media, etc. are for). OpenLeft is very appealing to the rest of us who actually care about finding real-world solutions. And over time, as the propaganda is revealed not to work in the real world, more and more people will come around looking for solid, reality-based information at OpenLeft and similar outlets.

Thanks for giving us solid, reality-based news and commentary.


Yea its being read (0.00 / 0)
but when most of the information is already known, the posts are pointless and too frequent.

All I see is people recycling stories from one blog to the next blog. Like MYDD, Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo.

Just my thoughts, not trying to be an ass.  


The big stories, yes (4.00 / 1)
With unique commentary from each site.

But because not all blog readers read all blogs, that helps get big stories and ideas that accompany them to a larger, more diverse audience.


[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 4)
Stories have zero impact when they get mentioned once. That's why people in government and business take out the trash on Friday evening - having uncomfortable information out there briefly generally means that it doesn't matter.  Impact depends on whether a story has legs - i.e. keeps going.

The Right has excelled at keeping stories alive when there is nothing there - it's an important source of their power. The dense networks across Conservative bases of power are why they can maintain a good deal of control both in government and in the media despite their minority status.

To suggest that attempts to keep key issues going across sites like Open Left is to ask for unilateral disarmament.  Good for the Republican Party, good for conservative Democrats, bad for the rest of us.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
That's something they teach you in marketing -- (0.00 / 0)
people have to hear/read/see something three times before they remember it. The righties figured that out a long time ago.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Oh, The Village reads blogs (4.00 / 1)
Blogs have more influence on conventional wisdom, the narrative, and even on actual policy than some critics of the blogosphere want to admit. Part of the muddle of the Sirota tit-for-tat is that Dave, formerly a critic of the sausage machine, now looks like a Village striver.

The question should be, do blogs represent their self-proclaimed principle to open up politics to people power? The answer is mixed. On one hand, we saw in the primary that roughly 1/2 of Democrats are impervious to messages from both the creative class and the mainstream media. There was no proportionality between pro-Obama media, paid and unpaid, and the primary vote. This, to my mind, is the most remarkable lesson from last year. The people most able to either see through media bias, or tune out the punditocracy, were traditional, non-tech savvy Democrats.

On the other hand, the creative class, with the benefit of the tubes' two-way communication, have quite a bit more influence over the debate than the average citizen.

This mixed bag, with traditional Democrats being further pushed out of the dialog, is the underlying frustration for Sirota's critics. Taking African Americans out of the mix, something like 2/3 of working class Democrats did not vote for his ultimate candidate, and would wonder what happened to Dave, the champion of the working man.

Do blogs matter? To DC, yes. Increasingly so. To most voters? No. In fact they marginalize non-tech savvy voices.

If we're going to have genuinely democratic people powered politics in our party, we need to include all voters and activists, and at least with the current revision of technology, we don't know how to do that.



A question (4.00 / 1)
This mixed bag, with traditional Democrats being further pushed out of the dialog, is the underlying frustration for Sirota's critics.

What do you mean by traditional Democrats? Perhaps I'm misreading you, but to me your comment sounds a bit like someone defending Hillary Clinton by pretending to be a polite version of Sarah Palin.

The traditional Democrats I worked with during the campaign, including quite a number in their eighties, know very well what's on the Internet, including on blogs like this one. I think you're dealing in stereotypes here -- to what purpose, I haven't a clue.


[ Parent ]
Put differently (4.00 / 1)
Taking African Americans out of the mix, something like 2/3 of working class Democrats did not vote for his ultimate candidate, and would wonder what happened to Dave, the champion of the working man.

Assuming you're numbers are correct, another way of saying this is, including African Americans, many working class people voter for Obama and many did not. Perhaps some more did not.  It's not clear why anyone should draw any conclusions from that.

Even taking your 1/3 versus 2/3 number, it's impossible to draw any conclusions based on these distributions of votes alone.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
D.C. Reads Blogs | 12 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox