Two out of three is pretty bad

So I read three articles today. One discussed the differences among Blogger, Tumblr and Wordpress, which was concise and useful. It's the type of article we would have run in the Features section of the paper where I used to work. "Chunky type," some called it -- our editors loved the idea. It brought in the kids, they said. There wasn't much to it, but there didn't need to be.

The second and third took opposite stands; one said blogging is somewhat dying out, its audience marching to social media sites like Twitter. The other said blogging isn't dead so much as it is reverting back to its origin of niche topics. Both had their points, but ultimately I think the in-the-industry writers (i.e. not the <added a space!> 18- to 22-year-olds who are still in college) should reconsider saying "blogging is dead"dead, and rather revisit and redefine what blogging is.

What irked me: In two of the three of these articles, there were typos and/or grammatical errors. Yes, blogging may not be dead and may indeed be going back to the smaller niche areas of expertise where it began, but lordy, you undermine what you're trying to put out there when it's dotted with bad punctuation or misused words.

Edited to add the sentiment that it's hard to be both writer and copy editor.