Here's the story on Forbes.com, that seems to be a safe reg free site that anyone can read, if you want to see where else it's been picked up try this.

First of all, all press is good press. I'm psyched every time I see blogs get coverage like this, and it's amazing so many places are running the story. Unfortunately, as is often the case with big media like this, I think this is clearly a story written about something by someone who has no idea what they are writing about.

Some back story: A few months ago (right after we launched metroblogging) I was contacted by the AP and told they were doing a story about our sites. The questions they asked me were along the lines of "why would someone go to a blog when there's 'real news' sites available?" and other things which lead me to believe the writer didn't know much about blogs. That, and she told me "I don't know much about blogs."

I answered her questions and she ended the conversation telling me there wasn't any real direction for the piece yet since her editor just told her to write it but that she would see where it ended up after she talked to some more people. Fair enough.

Within a week or two I started getting e-mails from people I knew and many that I didn't that they had also been contacted by her and asked questions about what we were doing. Many of them said they were asked something like "I was told that Gawker is the best NY group blog, so why would anyone want to do something else." It also sounded like there was some digging for metblogs vs. -ist sites comparisons. Of course, the -ist sites are doing something totally different than we are, but you'd have to "get blogs" to see that.

When the story ran this morning I sent it to some people and asked what they thought. Smeg who blogs for us inBoston said:

It struck me that the writer of the article didn't quite understand what blogs are about. They have heard that hit rates are important. They have heard that maybe there is money to be made from advertising. But they aren't sure how. The whole article seemed very disjointed. Lots of references to blogs they have heard are popular. I guess, it just strikes me as very uninformed. The writer didn't appear interested or knowledgeable about the subject of blogging, let alone the subject of local "metro" blogs. Which is a shame, it could have been a great article.

And I think that sums it up really well. This is not Kendra's fault - as a journalist her job is to report about things she doesn't know about. That's what journalists do, and it's one of the very clear differences between then and bloggers. Bloggers are (for the most part) writing about things they are interested in and have some knowledge about, journalists are assigned stories that they often don't know anything about. Which is why journalists keep thinking bloggers are trying to be journalists. They just don't get it. For example:

"Of course, local group blogs cannot match resources like Citysearch.com or a newspaper's online metro section when you're seeking comprehensive restaurant reviews or concert listings."

That's because we aren't trying to do that. Someone is already doing it. We're doing something else. That's like pointing out the New York Times just doesn't have the kind of coverage of PC Case Mods and overclocking you can find in some computer publications. No duh.

There's some other debatable points (blogging.la traffic numbers and Gawker is the inspiration for all local group blogs? Please.) that I won't bother to pick apart. The bright side is that there are some journalists who do get it, and the more stories like this that run, the more doors are opened for people who know what they are talking about and understand the medium to write more informed pieces.

That said, the story ends on a perfect note with a quote from Scott Rafer of Feedster:

But the individual voices of local residents may offer a level of authenticity missing elsewhere.

"You basically can't hire people to do that. You have to get them to volunteer their time to do that," Rafer said.

Interesting side note: I checked the story on about 20 50 different websites and not a single one of them only the Houston Chronicle had links for any of the sites listed in the article. There's 12 different sites specifically named in this and no links to any of them. That would never happen on a blog. =)