He has it wrong. Putting aside fundamental facts such as:
- Blogging is about joining an open, two-way conversation. Old-media would never have allowed such a thing.
- As Michael Arrington says "those people with interesting things to say tend to get listened to. Those that don’t…don’t"
- As Shel says "At no point and in no space is there some Committee of the Anointed A-List sitting in a top down boardroom deciding who should link and who should be linked to"
There is a better, more compelling reason why the size of your audience and a blog's place in the 'A-List' is irrelevant (in broad terms).
Blogging is not about superstars; it's about individuals. It's the long tail of publishing. The top 100 is less important than the top 1 million - or more.
People and companies around the world start blogging not to get on the A-list, but rather to say something to their immediate audience. Even if that is an audience of one.
'Most Readers' will never beat 'Most personally relevant'. My local school's blog has more relevance to me than the A-list blog about schooling hosted by a stranger on the other side of the world.
When content is structured the way that blogging+rss has structured it, particpants (what used to be called 'the audience') get a chance to have a voice right alongside both the old-media and the A-list.
Ultimately the goal of blogging should be that participants can find content that is not just popular, but most personally relevant.
Update: Stowe takes the most balanced view so far with "A house divided against itself cannot stand... or can it?".