BlogHer

...to this week's BlogHer post on Twitter apps.

I blogged the following on BlogHer , about the new O'Reilly series on Women in Technology....

If you just casually glance around tech departments in companies and tech-oriented conferences, it's easy to get the impression that there aren't many women in technology these days. Yet it's undeniable that women are making a big impact on the technology world. (If you think it is deniable, then please keep reading.) Exploring this subject is a special series this month on O'Reilly: Women in Technology. Every day this month, an accomplished woman in technology shares her thoughts.*

If you've seen O'Reilly books, you know that each topic area gets its own animal. Tatiana Apandi perhaps hints at a theme of the series by explaining why the O'Reilly animal chosen for this series is the lioness:

Although the lion is often called the King of the Jungle, lion society is actually ruled by its females. Lionesses are the ones primarily responsible for providing sustenance for their entire pride. She is a natural leader. When hunting, each lioness plays to her strengths. She even adjusts her individual role in the hunt depending on the prey to ensure capture for the pride. She can adapt to suit the task at hand. A lioness also will nurse any cub, indiscriminate of whether that cub is her own. She will give with the greater good in mind.

So who are these lionesses in technology? Open technology evangelist (and Jive Software's Director of Developer Relations) Dawn Foster informs us that:

I will be appearing somewhere in this series along with Anna Martelli, Audrey Eschright, CJ Rayhill, Dru Lavigne, Gabrielle Roth, Jeni Tennison, Jill Dyche, Juliet Kemp, Julia Lerman, Kaliya Hamlin, Kirsten Jones, Lauren Wood, Leslie Hawthorn, Selena Deckelmann, and Shelley Powers.

If you don't recognize all of these names ... and I certainly don't ... the first installment hints that maybe we all should.

Leslie Hawthorne, formerly of Google and currently with the Open Source Programs Office, leads off the series with some thoughts on what leadership is -- and can be -- whether it's "female" or not.

I've never thought of my role in the technical community as being the result of or in any way inextricably tied to my femininity. If anything, in an effort to be the change I wish to see in the world, I've distanced myself from questions of gender roles in my work. If we are all (to be) equal, it seems counter-intuitive to look at my work as informed by my being a woman. I do and I make, I listen and I advise, I lead and I follow, and none of these things are the exclusive purview of women. While others might, I would not argue that either sex has a particular aptitude for any of these things. Still, when I look at what I do and what I make, I far more often than not find women playing a similar role and doing similar tasks: building communities, creating space for creativity and connection to manifest, taking care of mundane and arcane details so that others can focus on executing to a grander vision.

Like everyone else, I've been called many things in my day, and often the word used is mother – “a mother of open source” or “geek mama.” I usually hear these words after organizing a particularly effective conference, reviewing a Summer of Code student's slide deck before the big presentation, or posting a particularly insightful piece of advice to a mailing list. It's not a compliment I accept without reservation. It brands me as feminine in a masculine world, it implies difference where the optimal outcome is equality and, by extension, sameness.

Certainly, this designation means that people see me as someone who will solve problems effectively on the fly, provide reassurance and support, and impart accumulated wisdom and help when needed. Given that these are all things I strive to do, it's satisfying that I'm perceived this way. On the other hand, at its core the reality of that compliment can be wholly unrewarding; a woman is a mother by virtue of her having children, a powerful role, to be certain, but one by nature subservient to the desires and needs of others. While the role I play has a service-oriented capacity to it – and I personally feel a great responsibility to be of service to the various individuals and communities with whom I interact – it can, at times, feel as though my accomplishments are regarded as having no intrinsic value, that my actions have merit only insofar as they are a vehicle for helping others accomplish their goals.

This series looks like something to watch (and maybe to add to your feed reader).

Someone who won't be in that feed, but perhaps should be, is Addison Berry, one of the few female developers in the active Drupal community. I had the pleasure of meeting "Addi" in March at the OSCMS, where in a roomful of Drupal developers she was walking the walk that Leslie Hawthorne describes -- helping others do better. It's a small wonder she's so admired and respected in that do-ocracy.

Last week Addi posted some thoughts after on the developers' IRC channel "a conversation erupted about sexism":

The classic way that sexism rears its head in the community channels is when someone says something that is offensive or could be taken as a sexist statement. Now, if it is really just blatantly sexist and offensive, odds are that the community (or at least some individual(s)) will call the person out and reprimand them in some way. The other scenario is that a guy will say something that he may not "intend" to be offensive or was "just joking." This is where things can go very, very wrong depending on the reaction.

One of the most frustrating things about reactions is when someone says something to call it out and men in the channel come to the defense of the original person (or the behavior in general) by pointing out that they didn't mean it that way or that "that's what guys do." It is all the more annoying when these guys (and nice, well-meaning guys sometimes) distance themselves from their statements by saying "I'm not like that, but some guys are" and yet, they still end up either outright defending or playing Devil's advocate rather than trying to help the situation. The reasons this is infuriating is because 1) people are missing the crux of the problem and 2) it belittles the original objection. It adds insult to injury.

I don't want to devolve into the way men are or what social norms they have been exposed to. I also understand that men may not "realize" what they say or how they say it may be taken as offensive. But if someone points out that it is offensive, then that needs to be looked at and acknowledged, not only by the person who said it by but others in the community as well. Intention or reason is not the focus. Sexism is harmful whether someone meant it to be or not and that is what needs to be addressed. Excusing sexist behavior will not help it go away but acknowledging it and being more aware of it in our interactions with others will minimize it and that is a good thing for everyone involved.

The Drupal community has all kinds of social norms and ways of interacting. I mean for goodness' sake the crux of the Open Source community is this little thing called karma. I'm not saying that everyone will suddenly decide this is important and the sexism will just stop. We won't stop sexism. But we can be more aware and better attuned to its impact. We can react in a much more constructive and positive way. Honestly, in particular, we need men to not leave women hanging out on a limb by themselves.

Leslie sounds similar notes, in the broader context.

If anything, men tend to be passionate advocates for helping women have a broader involvement in the technical conversation and the shaping of our respective futures. I find myself spending time with individuals from many open source projects with wildly divergent aims and methodologies, but without exception the healthiest ones are those who place a high value on contribution of any kind, not just in the creation of code. Among these folks, I find my efforts are accorded the highest of respect and I am treated as an equal, if not as a goddess, for the simple things I do each day: bringing people together, providing structure and organization, understanding pragmatic but often overlooked details, communicating effectively with people from diverse backgrounds and helping them to work most effectively with one another. Some may call that mothering. I'd call it social engineering.

In other words, be the change.

In the second post in the series, the president of Harvey Mudd College, Maria Klawe, notes that the change is already happening in the schools.

As a child of the 1950s, I have spent my life being part of the wave of change for women in math, science, and engineering. While I was in high school, my teachers routinely said that girls couldn't do math or physics. While I was in college, some professors would ask me why I wanted to be a mathematician since "there are no good women mathematicians." Despite such comments, most of my teachers and professors were delighted to have a female student who loved mathematics, and they encouraged and supported me. They also got me started in K–12 outreach activities to convince girls, teachers, and parents that girls can excel in math and science and that doing well in high school math is essential for success in any professional career.

Today, about 45 percent of undergrad math majors and about 30 percent of the Ph.D. recipients are female. And it's much rarer to hear someone say, "Girls can't do math." Similar changes have been happening to differing degrees in almost every area of science and engineering. It's exciting to see dramatic increases in the number of women in this year's entering classes at the top science and engineering schools. Caltech's class of 2011 is 37 percent female, a huge increase over previous years. At Harvey Mudd College, the class of 2011 is almost 43 percent female, again a huge increase for Mudd, but still less than at MIT with 46 percent of its entering class female. Princeton's engineering class of 2011 is almost 40 percent female. Such large numbers of female students dramatically change the culture inside and outside the classroom, and both male and female students appreciate the difference.

In many ways, this is the best time ever to be a female student in a technical area.

It's not all rosy, though, especially in computer science ... which happens to be closely related to my own field. As an employer, let me tell you, it can be extremely difficult to find and retain talented women in programming. In our own experience, very few women even apply for such positions. It's not like talented female programmers and developers are not out there, but as a percentage there aren't many.

Maria reports that "the percentage of CS bachelor's degrees granted in research universities to women is at 14 percent, its lowest ever (see http://www.cra.org/info/taulbee/women.html)" and that barriers still exist for women in the male-dominated world of technology.

But this is all changing. We are the change.

What are the ways you see to be the change? Post a comment here. Join the Deeply Geeky email list. Blog it. Talk it. Be it. Let's hear you roar.

--

* Disclosure: After writing this, I was informed that BlogHer.org has been approached to contribute to the O'Reilly series. I am a Contributing Editor for BlogHer.org, for which I get paid a modest stipend.

It's time for me to put my foot down. There's been a lot of griping about the BlogHer Conference, and griping about the griping. Within this metadiscussion, there's been much ado about BlogHer and its sponsors. First of all, I agree with the sentiment that BlogHer cannot be everything for everybody. However, there's been some very good criticism, and unlike some, I don't find fault with finding fault. As I am the president of a featured sponsor of BlogHer, though, maybe my opinion on all this is categorically deemed suspect by some. I'll just say what I have to say and let you be the judge.

How the sponsors handled their opportunities was really up to them, and when they blew it, well, that's on them, too, and is not the BlogHer organizers' fault.

At the top of the list of eye rollers was Microsoft, whose "Be a Jane" push struck me as a kind of Stepford Bloggers appeal. Suebob at Red Stapler puts it well:

Sometimes I am amazed at the stupidity I will sit through. The Evil Empire (the world's largest maker of software) put on a short presentation on the second morning of BlogHer that went down like the Titanic, and just about as quickly.

I have read bits about it all over the internet - that it was the marketing loser move the year, pretty much. I agree.

Of the other sponsors, GM might have been the big winner by simply offering up enticing opportunities to test drive their new cars. They were unobtrusive, never got in your face, even if you walked right by their reps, but they and their cars were there if you were interested (and looking at the BlogHer photos, many women were very much interested). GM got a lot of 'net publicity, and they didn't have to be obnoxious to do it.

The area that brings the most discomfort for me is where sponsors are panelists and keynote speakers. Here I have some disclosures to make: I was a panelist at the conference.

I now understand that all panelists and speakers were given travel stipends to appear (which I believe is a fabulous practice for what is still very much a start-up conference). I did not seek and was not offered any sort of stipend or reimbursement for my travel to BlogHer. That raises in my own mind the question of whether I was included on that panel simply because I was a sponsor. I don't believe that's the case, but if it is, then I should not have been there, because I feel that's totally inappropriate. (The same goes for my Contributing Editor status on the BlogHer site.)

In my own defense (to anticipate any criticism), I did not approach my participation on that panel wearing a sponsor hat, and I did not use that session as an opportunity to promote our business or huck our wares -- which is more than can be said for other sponsors who were official BlogHer speakers. Still, there is some fuzzy gray area of possible perceptions here, and I'm not comfortable finding myself in it.

But let's look at the bigger picture here. Did having strong sponsor presences constitute a sell-out? As Lisa and Elisa have said, the sponsorships made it possible for the conference to be affordable, with free food and drink and set in a pleasant venue (much friendlier than, say, the Las Vegas Convention Center, where the mother of all conferences, NAB, takes place).

I would add that if we or someone else had not stepped forward to design and develop the BlogHer community website, it probably would not exist either. We were delighted to have the opportunity to support what we consider a great cause, and despite our absence from the press hoopla, we've benefitted greatly from our association with BlogHer (not to mention the banner ad that has lived for six months on the site). We have no regrets.

I don't know if our involvement with BlogHer in aggregate constitutes crossing the line, but I'm glad we were able to help make the line possible.

[image: "Ping Vision Sandals", posted by cambodia4kidsorg]

Can't we all just get along? (And not only that, connect and network and mentor each other?) That was the sentiment expressed by what seemed like an under-represented group of BlogHers.

I'm talking about the geeks. (Hmmm? Forgot about us?) :D

The highlight of the entire BlogHer Conference for me was the Deeply Geeky session -- and I'm not just saying that because I was on the panel. This was a session full of passion and insight, and I really feel like people walked into the room as individuals, but walked out with a sense of, if not solidarity, than connectedness. We are not alone.

"How many of you consider yourselves geeks?" Nearly everyone's hands go up.

"How many of you are self-taught?" Again, nearly everyone raises a hand.

"How many of you were mentored?" Five, maybe ten hands, out of a room of, what, 70 or 80 women.

That says a lot.

From the very start, we panelists -- Melanie Swan, mir verberg, Nancy White and myself -- wanted our "panel discussion" to really be an un-panel. Who were we to speak for everyone? I certainly did not want to be part of a pontification session. No, we wanted to engage the "audience" and make them be participants.

As a result, 97% (or so it seemed; maybe a geek will add up the minutes when the podcast goes live) of the hour and a half was filled with women standing up, taking the mic, and opening their hearts.

"Why are so few women able to find mentoring?" There was a lot of opinion on that: because men won't mentor women; because women aren't in positions to mentor other women; because women won't mentor women; because women aren't getting hired in the first place.... The answers were not at all unanimous.

Women stood up, took the mic, and took issue with what others said. It wasn't nasty or contrarian, but spirited. The whole room was in on the conversation. Some women stood up and laid their hearts out, sharing their passion for what they do, often with tears -- not of victimhood, but of joy, of determination, of speaking from the core of their beings. (Yeah, it sounds corny to read it, but I swear it's true.)

"Are women victims of chauvinism?" Yes. No. Maybe. So what? Duh! "Is it worse in tech than other fields?" Yes. No. Maybe. So what? Duh!

"Why are women uncomfortable assessing their own ability?"

"Why don't women get hired into management?"

"Why are women so often assumed to be incompetent technically?"

"Why are so many women entrepreneurs, yet so few are CEOs of larger concerns?"

"How do you deal with the jerks?"

"What can women do to change this?" Fight. Do better. Network better. Be more assertive. Change the culture. Estroswarm (a hiliarious word tossed out by Liza Sabater).
One of the most gratifying things coming out of this session was that here we were, all sharing a general sense that we had to do something -- and someone suggested we start right there, in the room, by gathering everyone's contacts into one meta-group, networking and mentoring each other and just staying connected.

That made total sense! As a self-taught geek who's too much the dork to be any good at networking, this was music to my ears. I mean, this room was its own estroswarm of geek power in this corner of the 'net industry.

So I pulled my notepad out of my bag and started passing it around the room, and it seems like everyone add their name and email -- a brave thing to do at a conference. We now have a list of women interested in keeping something of the connected feeling I think we all felt in that room.

--And some of the women sent us emails following up, giving us more names of women from their networks who would be interested in joining the community!

Of course, being geeks, Nancy, Melanie, mir and I are now sizing up just what the best way to go about this might be. A simple listserv? A social networking site? A corporate service like [fill-in-the-blank] Groups? (The latter is most unappealing to me.) Options are being considered. We'll have something up soon. Promise!

I came away on a total high from that Deeply Geeky session, and for me was the utter highlight of the entire conference. And no swag shortcomings or perceived demographic tilts or very odd bottled water or commercial corporate sponsor miscalculations can take away my sense that the BlogHer Conference was way cool, because for those 90 minutes, I was not alone, and I met some really great women before, during and after.

What else could I ask for?

[Cross-posted from BlogHer.]

Recently I was interviewed by Greg Knaddison about Drupal, BlogHer, convergence and other stuff -- which is a lot to cover, and I rambled quite a bit. So Part One is now up at Performancing.com.

At first blush, since only 20 people read this blog on a good day, I should feel safe writing about my jitters about going to and speaking at BlogHer -- not to mention the plane ride, which always can give me the jitters (and being treated like cargo by the airlines doesn't help) -- right? Of course, since many women have said they're "reading up" on as many blogs as possible, maybe more than 20 will read this. I know that if I don't tag this post with the Drupal tag, the traffic will be lower than otherwise, which is good....

...And so it goes: The kind of crazy neurotic ramblings in my mind when I get jittery.

So maybe it will help if I just write what I'm jittery about, so I can see just how silly it is and laugh and find a reason not to worry about it and, maybe, lose some of the jitters.

I'm really looking forward to it!

Yesterday, Technorati responded to my inquiry:

I've taken a look at the issue regarding picking up your pings for "www.pingv.com" and "blogher.org". After making a small adjustment, I've sent our spiders to revisit your pages and your blogs have been indexed with your most recent posts.

This leads me to believe that perhaps their spiders were not optimized for these sites. Whether that's related to Drupal or not, I don't know. I appreciate their timely response. (Marianne Rchmond has praise for Janice Myint, who was the rapid responder to my trouble ticket as well. Thanks, Janice!)

All of our Drupal-powered sites (including BlogHer, pingVIsion and this humble blog) seem to be tracking properly on Technorati now.

Reading my earlier post in the light of day, I see that it comes off much snarkier than I had intended. I did not mean to imply dark or nefarious reasons for the slow tracking, and really wanted to plug Technorati's new faves list as a way to promote BlogHer.

As mobilejones notes in a comment to my post on BlogHer, BlogHer is being tracked very well by other search engines and trackers. So perhaps I'm being unfair to Technorati in the title. Still, they have the brand recognition, so we -- I -- want to figure this problem out.

The BlogHer listing is now only slightly out of date. This could be because of my manual pinging of Technorati last night -- perhaps there's a couple-hour delay these days.

Alas, manual pinging has done nothing for the plight of the pingVision site. I just added rare pattern to my faves list, and Technorati shows it as 103 days out of date -- which is only 84 days off, if you don't count my post made last night.

For the geek-minded reading this, BlogHer, pingVision and rare pattern are powered by Drupal and automatically ping Technorati through ping-O-matic. In an email, another web developer wrote me suggesting that perhaps the problem is with ping-O-matic. I don't know, when manual pinging of Technorati doesn't seem to have an effect. Still, I don't think anything is conclusive yet. We'll have to see.

(I've contacted Technorati about these issues via their contact us form. I am awaiting a response.)

Here's something I posted on BlogHer....

I think that, given the incredible activity on BlogHer these past few weeks, the answer is undoubtedly "yes." [Remarks on site stats deleted. -LS]

But I have to wonder about Technorati and their inability (or unwillingness?) to track BlogHer. What prompted me to write this is that, as I was adding BlogHer to my Technorati faves list, I saw that Technorati did not have any up-to-date info on BlogHer.

I manually pinged Technorati but after some 20 minutes now, still no change.

(And this isn't nearly as bad as seeing our business site listed as not having been updated in 186 days! Granted, we don't blog there every day ... it's been a few weeks now ... but the last posts were earlier this month! Anyway....)

Some might ask: Why not say Technorati schmechnorati! and be done with it? Do we all need the A-list mentality, as Jory asks? Is mobilejones right? Does Technorati even matter in this MySpace world?

At this point, I have to laugh at myself, because I noticed all this while participating in Technorati's latest popularity measure -- which is very undemocratic, tends to mainstream traffic, and generally rewards the already-successful. And here I was excitedly playing along! (Aren't I the disruptive little blogger now?)

Still, when the question remains, "Where are all the women bloggers?" -- the best answer is right here, on BlogHer, in the blogs written by these amazing contributing editors, and in the blogrolls. Of course, list obsessions are a big deal for some bloggers -- and was a topic in last year's conference. And so, by the way, was Technorati's apparent blindness to women's blogs in general. Yet, as Charlene Li noted last year, people pay attention to lists. Maybe we shouldn't sneeze at them.

Subverting the mainstream is part of the disruptive nature of the long tail -- and the Cluetrain will win out, in the end. But part of "success" -- which, in this case, we can consider being noticed -- comes from gaming the system, and while we may pooh-pooh such gimmicks and tactics when it comes to our own blogs, it behooves us to do the little things that can add up to a slightly improved collective visibility. (And I know, we want to get the pretty buttons going, too! Soon!)

So here's a link which adds BlogHer to your faves list (if you are registered there):

Maybe if enough people do this, the Technorati boys can't help but notice that there's a living, breathing website here. (Will this post change things, as public pleading did for Alexandra?)

(ps - And no judgments, please, on my other faves. I was just getting started when I saw what it said about BlogHer.)

Updated 1 March 2006, 1:07 PST

Today, Lakshmi Chaudhry has an interesting article up on In These Times: Can Blogs Revolutionize Progressive Politics?

The article runs down the usual dichotomy blog observers dwell on: how blogs are at odds with mainstream media. Prospects for how blogs might change the future are measured not in how the interactive media form is changing our culture and the very way we engage with the world, but in whether blogs can generate a specific outcome in the 2006 elections.

An Internet-fueled victory at the polls would certainly be impressive—no candidate backed by the most popular progressive blogs has yet won an election. But electoral success may merely confirm the value of blogs as an effective organizing tool to conduct politics as usual, cementing the influence of a select group of bloggers who will likely be crowned by the media as the new kingmakers.

Winning an election does not, however, guarantee a radical change in the relations of power. Technology is only as revolutionary as the people who use it, and the progressive blogosphere has thus far remained the realm of the privileged —a weakness that may well prove fatal in the long run.

In 2006, the biggest question facing blogs and bloggers is: Will their ascendancy empower the American people—in the broadest sense of the word—or merely add to the clout of an elite online constituency?

I don't think I agree with that conclusion -- or even the question. And I think the problem gets down to preconceptions of what a blogger is.

Blogs are literally vox populi—or at the least the voice of the people who post entries and comments, and, to a lesser extent, of their devoted readers. Telling bloggers that they’re wrong or to shut up is somewhat like telling respondents to an opinion survey to simply change their mind. When journalists reject bloggers as cranks or wingnuts, they also do the same to a large segment of the American public who seeblogs as an expression of their views. Such dismissals feed the very alienation that makes blogs and bloggers popular.

The irony is that bloggers are most powerful when they work in tandem with the very media establishment they despise. “Bloggers alone cannot create conventional wisdom, cannot make a story break, cannot directly reach the vast population that isn’t directly activist and involved in politics,” says Peter Daou, who coordinated the Kerry campaign’s blog outreach operations. Blogs instead exert an indirect form of power, amplifying and channeling the pressure of netroots opinion upwards to pressure politicians and journalists. “It’s really a rising up,” says Daou.

Can this online rebellion lead to real political change? The prognosis thus far is encouraging, but far from definitive. [emphasis added]

See, this is where I have a problem. I submit that the only reason we have what might be called "Establishment Bloggers" is because, today, the information media environment is still dominated by the international media conglomerates. Of course blogs can't take on the mainstream media alone right now! Blogs are totally outgunned financially and in terms of audience.

But there's no reason at all to assume that things will stay this way. Because what we're seeing is a cultural and economic transition from the hit-driven, passively experienced information and entertainment marketplace to the long-tail-driven, actively engaged information and entertainment marketplace. And the megacorporations are institutionally not well-equipped to take advantage of this, for while they have the money, they do not have the vision. And their corporate cultures are lost in ideas that no longer can thrive, yet are beholden to the interests of a well-fed management that generally has treated content producers with disrespect, if not outright contempt.

It cannot last.

Let's go back a little bit. Once upon a time, television was considered a toy for the wealthy. I have heard enough stories about that day when the Phelps' or the Johnsons got the first TV on the block to make it clear to me that the world was a lot different then.

A lot different.

Flash forward to the 1990s and everyone had a television. Heck, everyone had three televisions! By the time the dot-bomb happened, the only people who didn't have televisions were people who deliberately chose not to have televisions. What once was a luxury item for the upper middle class became a staple item for just about every American's life.

There's no reason to assume that today's blogging demographics will be any different.

To be sure, there are barriers that separate the blogging public from the non-blogging public -- but ultimately they are not economic. I know enough working moms, disabled poor and unemployed students who are blogging to know that the assumptions of an economically-defined "blogging elite" are way off target. While one needs a computer to blog, it doesn't have to be an expensive one. And unless one is of the baby boomer generation, and did not grow up to some extent with computers around, having a computer in the house increasingly is seen as essential -- for shopping, for job hunting, for keeping in touch with friends and family. When you can buy a Dell for $250, and use free blogging software or a free blogging service, the barrier to having the tools to blog is rather low.

And it's not like you have to spend all day blogging. Nearly all the people I know blog in their spare time, in addition to one or two jobs, family commitments and so on. You don't have to be part of the idle rich to blog. So let's just dismiss notions that blogging is done just by "the privileged."

Rather, the dominant demographic distinction is along educational and cultural lines. Let's look at the latter first.

Take television: Today, people are starting to find they don't have as much time for television. And so people try to squeeze it into other parts of their day: in the car, in the shower, on in the background while eating or getting dressed or paying the bills. Once upon a time, some 58% (if memory serves) of the television viewing audience watched the last episode of M*A*S*H. Today no show comes close to that. Not by half. Not by half of half. And it's not just because people are watching more channels. It's because more and more people are finding that they just don't have time to watch.

There's also a new generation now that doesn't watch at all. No news, no cartoons, no sitcoms, no Law & Order.... The TV sits there, turned off, unused. They don't want to watch. They'd rather be online. Or gaming.

The other main divide between bloggers and non-bloggers, I believe, is education -- and while that to an extent can be proscribed by economic class, it's not impossible to obtain. In fact, those fortunate enough to have gone to a competent high school probably learned how to write well back when they were learning how to drive well. (Me, I couldn't write a coherent paragraph until my last third year in the state university, and I got two tickets for speeding and one for rolling through a stop sign before I turned 18.)

The format of blogs today is the written word. And let's face it, you have to have at least some education to communicate in writing. If you can't write what you mean, then blogging probably won't work out too well, because nobody will understand you! (And if you podcast or vlog, you need to be able to competently put the piece together, which also takes some technical and/or learning skills -- in addition to communication skills. And, of course, you'll have to have "it" -- that compelling presence that makes people want to listen or watch.) But education can be obtained, and it's an area where the poor can out-perform the trust-fund babies.

Yet given these economic and cultural barriers to blogging, it may seem to some that blogging is doomed to marginalia in the media realm. But these barriers to blogging are going to fall, and rather quickly. Why? Because while blogs will almost certainly morph -- into visual and aural communications in addition to textual -- one thing will not change: the interactivity of (what we call) blogging.

On the web, people interact. People find their voices and express themselves -- which is a far cry from the common television experience. Bloggers are not couch potatoes. Bloggers do not sit back and watch whatever is on. Bloggers do not sit passively through commercials. Bloggers choose.

It is the active, interactive, decisive way of getting information that defines blogging more than stereotypical notions of Joe Bloggs sitting at his computer in his PJs. And it is the active, interactive, decisive way of connecting with the world that is just starting to sweep through the media world today.

I would go so far as to say that there's no way blogs -- or what blogs become -- won't transform our society. They're already transforming our culture. And while the mega-media companies are the big players today, and still dominate, in the end they will have to adapt or die, because times, they are a' changin', and they won't wait for nobody.

Yet Chaundhry's analysis remains plodding in the present:

But many like Daou remain skeptical about the power of blogs to directly impact politics at the grassroots level. “You’re not going to go out there and mobilize a million people and have them all come to the polls and donate money. Blogs will never do that,” he says

And they may be even less effective in areas that are traditionally not as internet-savvy as the rest of the country, be it the rural red states or impoverished inner cities. Creating a virtual “community center” is unlikely to compensate for the Democrats’ disadvantage on the ground. Due to the eroding presence of unions, Democrats no longer possess a physical meeting place where they can target and mobilize voters—unlike Republicans, who rely on a well-organized network of churches, gun clubs and chambers of commerce.

"Never" is a word rarely proven true. And viewing blogs through the lens of today's economy and today's demographics is a mistake. We do not stand at the end of time. Our society is changing incredibly rapidly. And the old paradigm of hierarchical authority presenting information from the mount will gradually fade away to a world of lateral networks, interconnections and multilateral conversations. What that eventually will look like, who can say? But it won't look like Fox News or the Washington Post.