Scott Rosenberg delivers a message many in media knew but Scienceblogs bloggers were not thrilled to hear - they were a community to themselves but a commodity to the guy running SEED.
This loss of innocence is, I think, a nearly universal experience online. It occurs when one’s initial surge of idealistic delight at the freedom and opportunities of boundless self-expression slams into the realities of the media business online.
And then ...
Should the science bloggers have known what was coming? Should they have been less innocent? Probably. But then they might not have been as exuberantly good at what they did.
Indeed, they were the only ones who didn't see it coming. Starting in 2008 it was obvious to everyone else, but Scienceblogs people had a tendency to dismiss facts about the move toward institutional and corporate blogging as 'jealousy' by 'competitors' even when it came to sites that had no overlap in audience so couldn't be competition.
Basically, they believed in the experiment instead of the data and that will always end badly.
Is that always the case? I don't think so. We haven't had any big disappointments here and we have stayed on message, both as our reason for existence and our ethics. We just didn't have the more culturally active elements that can only be inspired by controversy and drama. We just like science.
