Blogs

This is news, but there's a lot more going on as well in the STL Blogging community.

Dana deserves a lot of credit for elevating the local blogging scene.

The Post online has lost its mind.

......................

Unrelated, but related:

And if anyone wants to know what's happening in the blogostlsphere, search for Dave Mastio...

Thanks for this write up. Good sharing about Dana's situation and it gives us a glimpse of how things might be headed in St. Louis for bloggers.

I enjoy Dana's blog and will continue to get the Dana fix there. It's STLToday's loss. No wonder people under 40 don't read the paper...too many sticks in butts.

I'm under forty, and I found Loesch's "work" appalling. Not because it was bodily-function-fixated, but because she couldn't even make _that_ fun. Her columns were all vague, snarky, poorly-worded ruminations on the same general themes: kids good, feminism bad, potty is funny, etc. Her column was tiresome, and I'm glad it's gone.

One more reason why I rarely read stltoday anymore.....they just don't get it.

The PD has a long road to walk ahead of them. This was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of their lack of understanding of the current trends in media. Merely asking a traditional reporter to write a column that goes online and sticking it in the "blog" section does not a blog make... The stories that are being pegged as blogs on their site are re-titled features stories and until the Post understands that they will continue to make poor decisions similar to their decision to let Dana go. These decisions aren't building their presence in the social media community, they are poorly executed attempts to regain the ground and readership (and advertising dollars) they are hermoraging as more people and businesses begin to look towards new media. I am not sure who is in charge of the revamping that the PD is trying to do right now, but this was a misguided first step in that journey.

I'm a daily reader of Dana's blog, and when I heard that they dropped her from the post I was astonished. Some people might find her offensive, but hey, you can't please everyone. What about the other 90% of readers who actually read her column and liked it? Why don't they give a damn about us? I can honestly say that her column was about the only thing in that paper that wasn't about as dry as the paper itself. As for the readers who don't like her style, over 40 or not, DON'T READ IT. Or at least open your mind a little.

dana was given grief by offending 'people' with comments about breastfeeding and potty training. yet, today on the front page of stltoday is an AP video story of the now famous NY govenor call girl and her 'girls gone wild' discovery.
also, in the entertaiment section they write of a special that will air on prostitution.
so...reading about normal things that happen in childhood,UNACCEPTABLE. reading about prostitution and call girls, ACCEPATABLE. interesting.

Looks like the P-D has taken down those links to the tug-of-war columns.

I sent copies this letter to the editor of the Post, Sultan and Loesch yesterday. Surprise, surprise Loesch was the only one to respond.

To Whom it May Concern,

I do not make it a habit of contacting the editor regarding what appears in your paper or Online, but I could not let this opportunity pass without giving my two cents. For the past year and a half, I looked forward to Dana Loesch's column and her quirky take on motherhood and life in St. Louis. I followed her adventures on www.Mamalogues.com and truly felt as if she was someone that I could connect with. While I am not a mother yet, I am expecting my first child in a matter of weeks and related to Loesch's life.

I was thoroughly disappointed when I read her final column and that she would no longer have an Online presence at www.stltoday.com. Loesch gave me a reason to read the paper and to visit your Web site. As a member of the 25-54 demographic, I know that you want me to visit your site. I know that your advertisers want people in my demo to read your paper and to look at your Web site so that we will buy their products. But we are turning more and more to television and radio to get our news. Print is an ailing medium that needs a pep pill to attract the younger readers. However, removing Loesch and replacing her column with Aisha Sultan is not the way to do it.

I gave Sultan the benefit of the doubt and read her columns for the past few weeks. I was not impressed with the first, but felt that everyone deserves a shot. However, her flippant attitude and feeble attempts at humor have left me longing for Loesch. Her March 14 column regarding Walt Disney's disregard for mothers was the end for me. This is only her eighth column and she is rehashing a topic that has been mentioned in the blogosphere for years. If you Google, "Disney's lack of moms," thousands of blogs and columns appear discussing the exact same topic that Sultan attempts to pass off as fresh material.

It is a disappointment to me that the Post-Dispatch would replace Loesch's charm and sometimes irreverent attitude with something safe, like Sultan. I realize that I am one reader and that there are probably others out there who appreciate the West County, "I am better than you," arrogance that oozes out of Sultan like pus, but I am not one of them. I long for Loesch's sharp tongue and fabulous wit. Your paper needs an infusion of fun. Sultan simply can't cut it.

Best of Luck

Colleen

St. Louis, MO

I thought that Bill McClellan was the Best Newspaper Columnist as voted by the people. Ms. Loesch was the choice of your paper, no? Anyway, I, too, am glad that her column is no longer taking up space at the Post Dispatch. I think the bottom line was that her column was just okay, not great, and clearly didn't have the readership to keep it in the paper.

I'm under 25, not married and have no children and I LOVED Dana's column. It wasn't always a home run, but she entertained. Not interesting? Puh-lease! Glad she's still writing the blog, that'll do.

Quit blaming the over-40 crowd for the PD's decision to "de-Loesch." Plenty of younger readers were turned off by her column, too. Even "cool" younger readers who gravitate toward the blogosphere. Loesch had a good run in the Post-Dispatch, but after a couple of years, her column became a lot less informative and a lot more annoyingly self-indulgent. Readers got tired of it.

I am 26 years old, and I agree that the column had run its course. I find it very questionable that Ms. Loesch was the leader of a group of bloggers who made it clear they did not appreciate Dave Mastio at BNN using their material to make advertising dollars, but now they are going to do the same? GEEZ that's sad. Why did I not know that it wasn't a principle, it was about MONEY.

I think this is a case of a writer losing their voice. (not to sound hillary-esque) The first columns had a fresh, new voice, and then slowly drifted into a boring read. I hope that Ms. Loesch is able to regain that ability and I look forward to seeing it in her blog.

I find it perplexing that Dana's column has been discontinued, apparently because some readers have complained about supposedly "vulgar" content, yet Bob Rybarczyk's column is still being run. They both write about parenting in a blunt style.

And yet, somehow, Bob can get away with writing two entire columns about cleaning up his kids' vomit, but Dana couldn't write about breastfeeding or potty training without the editors swooping in to try to sanitize her words. Why is it all right for a man to write about the nitty gritty realities of parenting, but not all right for a woman to do the same?

As the parent of a young child myself, I have enjoyed Dana's blog and column for years and I was very disappointed that the P-D felt its readership felt it necessary to replace her with the kind of specialist in euphemism who can manage to write an entire column on breastfeeding while mentioning the word "breast" only once.

By the by, in response to the comment left by "Hmmm," the BNN Blog Blast WAS certainly about principle for me. And I trust that it was also about principle for Dana. Dana has a long history of standing up for intellectual property rights and supporting fellow bloggers in the community. I am proud of the St. Louis blogging community for coming together to protect our work from exploitation.

Hmmmm - man up and use your name for crimneys sake.. gheesh its one thing to be an Eballer but at least be a consistent Eballer....
cough coughLizcough cough

I second Jaelithe's comments. All of them. (Except for "as the parent of a young child myself.")

I, for one, view her dismissal from the PD as a compliment, for it is indeed not a bad thing to be told one's writing has elicited negative response; much great writing does. Great writing challenges the status quo. A negative response speaks more negatively of those who complain than it does of the person who so prompted them. It speaks more negatively of the vast vocal minority than it does one true, candid voice. It speaks more negatively of society's thread-bare expectations than it does of those who dare to exceed them.

Also, "Hmmm": The Blog Blast was about principle for me, and I know that to be true for Dana as well. Dana has done something most of us long ago abandoned; she found success making money, supporting her family, by doing something she genuinely loves. More than that, though, she has entered into and participated in a significant, cohesive blogging community in St. Louis. And that means more than a paycheck.

Colleen, your words are harsh. But I have full confidence that Ms. Sultan, as a journalist and writer, has developed her tough skin that most columnists and writers have to.
Because we all know there are infinite kinds of readers out there and columnists don't please everyone. I thoroughly enjoyed Dana's columns and continue to read her blog on a daily basis. She is a good writer.
I enjoy Bob's columns too, except when he writes about cats. When he writes those, I don't read them period. He's a bit wordy at times, but still, some are hilarious. So all columnists have readers, who may not like some of their columns. Or can't relate to them. As a columnist, you have to find your voice but also write something that will pique someone's interest. I have no desire to relate to a column about cats, but I can clearly see Bob's humor in his columns about his manliness. and they are hilarious. some more memorable than others. I also have enjoyed reading Bass's columns.
So in a nutshell, column writing is a personal taste, just like music or cooking or anything else.

I suspect her dismissal had nothing to do with her being "vulgar." It was self-indulgent, which is fine . . . for a blog.

Brian, do you also think Aisha's column is self-indulgent? Because she is writing on the same topics. She is just doing it in a more buttoned-up style.

It makes no sense to say that the Post-Dispatch must have thought the subject matter of Dana's column was somehow inappropriate when the Post-Dispatch has now reassigned a staff reporter to write a column covering the very same topics. And when, as I pointed out, the Post still employs other columnists who write primarily about their personal life experiences. Not just Rob, but Amy Bertrand. Heck, even Bill McClellan writes about his personal life now and again.

Some people actually enjoy reading about other people's life experiences. Some parents, in particular, feel they can learn from the everyday trials and triumphs of other parents. That is why the Post has so many columnists in the Life and Style section.

I don't think Ms. Sultan's column is self-indulgent. It's written in a style that discusses parenting in a general fashion, rather than about her family exclusively. Ms. Loesch wrote something along those lines on her blog when Ms. Sultan's column first appeared (however, going back, I haven't been able to find that entry).

"Dana deserves a lot of credit for elevating the local blogging scene."

Excuse me? I don't think so. There were many, many people blogging in the local scene before Dana Loesch got started. I wouldn't say she elevated anything--quite the contrary, in fact. One Dooce-wannabe more doth not an elevation make!

Dana writes a blog. Her writing is blog style, not newspaper style. It's not great writing, it's just okay. Her lack of technical training in writing is glaringly obvious.

I'm under 40, and I didn't care for her column most of the time, either. Her opinions are quite forceful, and repetitive--God/Jesus good, feminism bad, anything conservative good. The way she expressed these opinions was tiresome, as she was hateful towards anyone who dared to believe anything different, or who dared to question her beliefs. She's mean-spirited, and that's how she differs from Bob Rybarczyk--he's not, and he's funny to boot.

Personally, I was glad to see her go. Her column was overly self-righteous and self-indulgent.

Rochelle,

Unfortunately, you err greatly by assuming that Dana is "hateful towards anyone who dared to believe anything different, or who dared to question her beliefs." This is outright inaccurate. Yes, she may strongly state her opinions; but I question anyone's validity if s/he does not strongly state or back up their opinions. Although I come from a considerably liberal viewpoint, I admire Dana for taking stands on what, in today's society, is often considered taboo. I also admire that she is close friends with, and respectful of, many people who do not share her conservative and/or political beliefs.

In addition, Dana was hired specifically to write a column and a blog for STLtoday. She was hired because of her personal blog. She was hired to write as she writes on this blog. She was supposed to write, as you say, "blog style." Columns are NOT articles; columns are purposefully different and serve quite a different purpose. Dana fulfilled these expectations.

Unfortunately, STLtoday apparently no longer values columns for what they are supposed to be, as is made quite evident in Dana's replacement, who writes "columns" that are much more like articles.

Finally, no one questions that many people were blogging in St. Louis before Dana came along. However, her success (with her blog(s), her work for STLtoday, on television, and on the radio) has certainly increased awareness and appreciation of, and even participation in, the St. Louis blogosphere.

I think Mrs. Loesch showed her true colors when she posted about being fired from the Post Dispatch on her blog. It was a childish temper tantrum. I pictured her stomping her feet and holding her breath as she conveniently mentioned that she was still awaiting a paycheck. It's a bummer for you that you were fired, Dana, but adults keep things above the belt. I guess you enjoying shooting yourself in the foot, huh?

Awesome, haters! For the record, Erma Bombeck was the original, the prototype. As I've written before, I've been called an "environmental liberal halfwit," a Bible-beating conservative (I never said feminism was bad, let's be accurate now), a great writer, a bad writer, too blunt, too vague, too sappy, too mean, etc. If I listened to the critics I'd be pschizo. So I don't.

I've been informed that Mrs. Loesch has posted her outrage at my directing a comment to her on Easter Sunday, of all days. Mrs. Loesch--please tell me you are aware that there are people out there of different faiths and many of us don't celebrate or recognize Easter. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and believe that this was simply an oversight on your part that not everyone shares your religious beliefs and practices.

"Outrage?" I found humor in the irony was all and I didn't post it, you saw it on Twitter. Please don't let your hatred of me distract you from what actually happened. That's no fun. Thanks.

Mrs. Loesch--I don't hate you. I don't even know you. I simply wanted to post my opinion in a public forum. I'm not sure how you "found humor in the irony" of someone posting her opinion on what happened to be Easter Sunday, unless you are drawing a comparison between between Christ's dying for all mankind and the way you feel you're being crucified on this board. But that might be in poor taste.

Lucy, in context, I referenced the effort you put into your vitriol towards me on your day off. Nothing more, and nothing as dramatic as your suggestion. I'm glad to hear that you don't hate me. I must be one of the lucky ones. Thanks for the discussion.

When you come across as desparate for attention your writing soon gets boring. By her writing Dana strikes me as someone who doesn't realize how unhip she actually is.

I'm always shocked at how comfortable people are at writing mean spirited, personal attacks online, when they most likely wouldn't say word one in person. If you didn't like Dana's column, fine; if you don't care for her writing, fine; if you disagree with her, fine. But unless or until you've actually met her, conversed with her, gotten to know her, and then formed your negative opinions of her personally, enough with the personal attacks already. That way, your opinions on the actual content of this discussion- her actual writing, her blog, her column- may be taken a bit more seriously.

I know this is late, but...hooray! I never read anything by Dana Loesch that wasn't trite, under-researched, boring, and poorly-written. The woman can't even punctuate a sentence correctly, never mind more advanced writing skills like building a narrative structure, clearly advancing an argument, and writing funny jokes. I'm not a huge Bob Rybarczyk fan, but at least he has a firm grasp of the English language. Good for the P-D for finally waking up.