Kenneth Payne – Yes, the distribution is not democratic in the sense that all blogs are not equally read, but how could that be given the number of blogs, and unless the outcome were regulated? And it is up to a person to define what is most useful. Blogging is a process that includes the text, the comments (if the exist) and the presence of the hyperlink. Perhaps the professional reads around and links to a newbie? So, even if a person reads, say, the Guardian blogs regularly, there is no way of knowing what influences the individual more: the authors or the comments beneath (unless you ask the person, directly). It’s an interesting discussion, anyway, and a darn good post!

Second, the writers get instant (and often fairly blunt) feedback from their public. That’s double edged, of course – no one wants abuse – but it does make for more tailored writing. And although the blog may be sponsored by an old media brand, they tend to be personalized and without a formal writing style (compare, for instance, the Economist magazine and their Democracy in America blog). That makes for more freedom to adapt in the face of advice and criticism.

No doubt, as you say, new media has changed how old media operates – now they hire bloggers rather than columnists, or redress their columnists as bloggers. Good way of cutting overheads, I suspect.

For comparison, Tom Ricks is at number 755, Danger Room at no. 264, Defence of the Realm at no. 5071. Does it mean much? Probably not (though I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t sell my grandma to break into the top 2,800).

As for the survey – I’d say a survey of some 3000 bloggers is better than no survey at all.

To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies “they would say that, wouldn’t they ?”

Try searching for “Kings of War” in Technorati and you will find that KoW and other well respected and influential blogs no longer exist according to Technorati

After years of financial failure, they changed their business model and ranking algorithms to concentrate on the big US based mainstream media run blogs, together with an attempt to jump on the Twitter bandwagon, so their “2009 survey” is obviously biased as a result.

You are better off using say the Bloglines feed aggregator to get an idea of the relative number of subscribers i.e. regular readers, and their search facility, which turns up a few of the other blogs which may be citing your blog articles.

Technorati got progressively worse, and is now useless for this.

You are much better off analysing your own web server statistics , for glimpses of search engine keyword search phrases and for visits from the mainstream media and the security / military / industrial / political complex from around the world.

This is an imperfect art, but better than what Technorati now offers you.

That the audience from traditional media sites follows personalities online is to be expected. It’s the chance to “talk back,” to create, to connect, and potentially, to influence that are so interesting! I agree, though, that looking so much at the tail might confuse the issue, and obscure larger points. One way to look at it might be to ask how new media has changed the way that those top 40% “do business” (I don’t mean the financial pressures, I mean, has it changed the top dogs in how they view and present information?)

Endlessly fascinating topic. Well, for me!