It might be worth noting in passing the announcement last week that Andrew Sullivan, one of the first bloggers to come to prominence in the then-new field, has announced he's retiring from the pursuit.
Not so much because we don't already know that blogging as it was originally conceived of is dead - that's been true since roughly 2009, when social media came along. I remember telling folks at an EWA event around that time that starting a blog was generally a bad idea. See related posts below.
The real reason to take note of Sullivan's decision is that he pioneered or elevated some key aspects of the online world we occupy now, including several that I wish there more of: intellectual honesty (admitting to error, changing of mind), linking out to others' work or giving credit for someone else's having found something interesting (which many folks are still reluctant to do), and the mixing of serious and silly. He was also white, male, and a product of traditional journalism.
Leave it to EIA's Mike Antonucci to give us a good education-related bit of commentary (Dead Blogs), in which he reminds us all that blogging is just a delivery system not some sort of magic unicorn that's come and gone:
"I don’t want to sound like Andy Rooney – especially since some of you don’t remember him – but “blogging” is just a name for a technological improvement to what people have done for centuries."
Might be time to get on Twitter, Mike, but otherwise you've got it right.
Roundup of commentary on the Sullivan announcement: CJR: 7 ways Andrew Sullivan changed blogging; Mashable: Requiem for blogging; Washington Post: No, blogging isn’t dead; BuzzFeed: My Life In The Blogosphere; Daily Beast: Andrew’s Burnt Out? Blogs Are, Too.