The  New York Times carries a piece today about how Target, the store for chic on the cheap, feels about the blogosphere.  Blogger Amy Jussel, who runs ShapingYouth.org, a blog about the impact of marketing on children, had a bone to pick with the Target add showing a woman spread eagle on a target.

The response she received was enlightening:

“Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets,” a public relations person wrote to ShapingYouth.

“This practice,” the public relations person added, “is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest,” as Target refers to its shoppers.

You, Amy, are not worth our while, according to Target, because you are nothing but a mere blogger.  Dissed and dismissed.  Well, now we know what Target thinks of the power of the blogosphere.

But what does the Times think of the blogosphere.  Kevin O’Keefe  raised that issue a while back, because none other than the New York Times shared the view that the blogosphere was journalistic wasteland.  But as an add-on to this Target story, the Times  solicited reader comments to the following:

Target to the blogosphere: you’re irrelevant.

Do you think bloggers should expect to be treated the same as traditional media outlets?

Bearing in mind that this is an online reader survey, the reactions are quite illuminating for those of us engaged in, or concerned about, the blogosphere.  While the nature of the query, should we be treated “the same as” traditional media outlets betrays the Times’ bias, the response were still surprising strong.

Frankly, bloggers (myself included) have not earned the right to be treated the same as traditional media outlets.  Indeed, I don’t see my blawg as a media outlet at all, though there are some commonalities.  But at the same time, a majority of the response were quite off-putting, reflecting a decided lack of respect for the blogosphere.

I’ve argued abut this in the past, that those pumping and dumping more worthless, contentless blogs into the blogosphere as part of a marketing scheme is unhelpful to those of us why try (whether we succeed is another matter) to contribute to the marketplace of ideas.

And what have we learned from this?  Three things:  Target doesn’t respect the blogosphere.  The Times has no problem with the blogosphere, as long as we stay in our place beneath the traditional media outlets.  But most importantly, there remains a significant swathe of the public that has yet to be persuaded that the blogosphere has anything of consequence to offer.  I don’t blame the public.  The blawgosphere needs to do better.

As for the comparison of bloggers to traditional media outlets, it was a silly, loaded question.  I would love to have the time and access to play journalist and gather original content.  But I work for a living, and my time is spent representing people instead of playing junior journalist.  Would journalists have the time, access and interest if they weren’t getting paid to write?  Let’s keep things in perspective and not get ridiculous. 

On the other hand, the blawgosphere (as opposed to the blogosphere) has had some significant impact on the bigger picture, so I wouldn’t dismiss it as glibly as Target.  We may not be the New York Times, but we aren’t chopped liver either.