PJMelodrama

By
January 31, 2009

Update: PW responds to Roger.

Geez, you try to stay out of stuff out here and they pull you back in. Thanks Stacy.

And Roger Simon takes a mild shot at "people [who] are kicking and screaming now that they are off the dole." Is that too harsh? I dunno.

In the first place, I was a PJM critic early on. That led to an ending of sorts of a bloggy friendship with Jeff as he was PJM's most vocal source of support and cheering on in the early days. One might think that still counted for something even after all this time. Apparently it doesn't given the unprofessional and juvenile shot by Simon. He is, in name I believe at least, supposed to be a CEO?

Also I believe PJM has only survived on VC money and it doesn't in anyway appear to have ever generated a profit. Are not those still engaged then also still "living on the dole?" That, again, makes the shot all the more inappropriate and unnecessary.

Having read all this stuff, at no point did I see Jeff complaining about no longer "being on the dole." He seemed displeased that he was never able to contribute more for whatever reason. And it seems that reasoning was never explained.

Some businesses and some people don't belong in business because it isn't their thing and or they have bad plans. Obviously that's true for PJM as it is effectively no longer here.

As for Simon's PJ-TV. Yeah, I guess we'll have to wait and see. Based upon many commenters at multiple blogs - blog readers are not their audience. Do they, or will they ever have an audience to support whatever infrastructure they've built up?

I have my doubts. But it isn't my money coming or going, so who cares. They certainly did nothing to manage their PR on the business side effectively over time. Now this a month out from CPAC. So it seems a commercial video company (PJ-TV) with little interest in, or involvement with independent blogs has sponsored bloggers row there and at least appears to have had some input into who was invited and who wasn't. That doesn't sound like sponsorship. It sounds like a scam.

From my view as a blogger and an outsider, aside from the notion that some bloggers were able to generate income over time – perhaps in excess of what the market outside PJM could provide – the whole episode has not been good for blogs on the Right in general terms. And as PJ-TV seems to have no interest in indie bloggers, hopefully this posting ends my bloggy interest in them.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Jane says:

    I am glad you aren’t dependent on PJM. Hopefully, all the bloggers who are will find a way to keep blogging. But, as conservatives, they should be careful how they bash PJM. Afterall, sometimes businesses don’t work out the way you hope and they should be understanding. Heck, they should have known going in. They should have had plan b.

  2. My irritation with Simon etal is not that they’re hopeless incompetent, but that their failure is of the dust bowl variety–they have effectively sterilized the conservative blogosphere as a field of opportunity to more imagine, effective and profitable ideas.
    PJM effective created a gated community in the conservative neighborhood of the blogosphere to keep out the riff-raff. Its understandable of course–if you had made it in late 2005, then PJM was a good way to consolidate your gains, but the blow-back has been devastating, rendering the entire conservative blogosphere pretty much irrelevant. The left understood something the right missed out on–the blogosphere is not a place to read–its a place to participate. While Kos is giving people diaries, PJM was closing the gates. Dozens of interesting bloggers have just quit because there were never going to get linked and read. We cut ourselves off from the real power of the blogosphere and its unlikely we can get it back–the moment has passed.
    Now PJM is working on destroying internet video as well.
    I don’t know where the money is coming from, but I wouldn’t at all be surprised if it was from the Democratic National Committee. For a few million, they totally undermined a rising conservative venue.

  3. I guess I typed that last post too quickly. Apologies for all the typos…

  4. For conservatives, PJM certainly do seem to be business challenged, if they think they’ll make more money charging to watch videos of talking heads running their mouths. I won’t watch talking heads on TV, whether I agree with them or not; I certainly won’t pay a cent to watch them online. I almost never click on ads, either, but there’s a higher chance of that than paying to watch some stupid video.