 |
|
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Dishing on Andrew Sullivan.
Dishing on Andrew Sullivan.
I don't get it, so maybe one of you can explain it to me.
Andrew Sullivan's blog, "The Dish" is one of the more popular sites on the blogosphere. His huge reader base has been built on his reputation as a writer for Time Magazine, The London Guardian, and Free Republic. From what I know his blog is consistently in the top 10 of the "Ecosystem", which ranks the most frequented and linked blogs in the blogosphere.
So Andrew decides last year that he'd start a fundraising drive in order to cover his blogging expenses. He asks people to donate to help him with the upkeep of his site. He collected over $80,000 on the first one, and some accounts have said altogether (he's done at least two) that he's collected over $200,000 from his readers.
Once those numbers came out, I guess it was only natural for people to jump up and rip him for it. Michelle Malkin, INDC Journal, Tim Blair and others gave him hell for it, saying he's being deceitful because the money needed to keep up his site isn't even a fraction of how much he collected. They're also accusing him of using the money donated in order to take his hiatus from the site, including a trip to Europe.
As I stated in the comments section on Malkin's blog, it would be one thing if Sullivan told readers that they HAD to give, or how much they had to give in order to keep the site running. He didn't. Also, you have to consider the fact that Sullivan has a very large following on that site. Even a small portion of his readers giving, say, $20 dollars each could amount to thousands of dollars.
The fact is, people gave to his site because they liked his work, and they wanted him to continue it. If they didn't care, they wouldn't have given anything. It would be one thing if Sullivan stated that he was giving this money to a charity, or for health care of him or loved ones, or for something else. He didn't. It was for his blog, and it wasn't as if the people giving the money thought they were going to give a refund once he raised enough, or at least they shouldn't have.
This simply amounts to envy by several bloggers, many whom did not contribute to Sullivan's site and thus have no business in the situation. They are the ones that end up looking bad, not Sullivan. Simply put, the money isn't in their pocket, so they want to make sure it's out of Sullivan's pockets as well. If they aren't getting it, others shouldn't have it either.
Posted at 11:13 pm by Expertise
Home
|
|
 |
