Focus on what matters: your own thinking and increasing your hits. For the latter, you may want to – once every two weeks or so, no more – comment on what some big blogger like Kaus or Yglesias or Sullivan or similar – says about US policy in the Middle East. At the moment, you are self-isolated from the top blogs and links from those is where the hits come from.

In terms of upgrading the look, you probably only need to upgrade as far as e.g. Rhubarb Pie link to rhubarbpie.typepad.com
or link to unfogged.com
You dont need anything too fancy and in fact it's not too bad right now.

And do some book reviews with Amazon links with your % on the sales.

Journalism '2.0' is more transparent and process-oriented, that is, an ongoing conversation. No deadlines, no limits, no quarter for dangerous off-the-record types.

Me, I'd shuffle content to give the site more of a conversational feel, eg Seliger's post (or linked excerpt) appearing right next to Phil's piece, and first lines of the most recent comments listed underneath respective posts. (Comment feeds are already quickly becoming a norm, and Phil's there, but why not demonstrate them on the FP already?)

Of course then the conversation is developed further in the comment area itself, so the hardcore maniacs can go there to waste as many hours as they'd like.

Content-wise, I think Phil has really hit the bullseye with these recent back-and-forths, and there are so many potentially interesting subjects. He could concentrate more on these conversations, illuminating as they are, and editorialize at length maybe less frequently.

If time isn't a constraint Phil could handle the formatting, editing, and advertising himself. Otherwise I still think he's gotta hire somebody, so he can concentrate on original content, interviews, and the like.

MM says "If time isn't a constraint Phil could handle the formatting, editing, and advertising himself". MM may be right – but my own view is that not too much time should be spent by *anyone* on editing or formatting (barring once a year-ish site upgrading of format) and advertising depends entirely on hits/sales links/etc as I understand it. Again look at Marginal Revolution: no big investment there, no editor, but big influence. And maybe some income, though others may know better.

Additionally, the outlets he worked for–TPM, The Atlantic, TNR–all have documented zionist biases against criticism of Israel. But like I alluded to, Phil could just accept an undivided Jerusalem in his heart and the golden gates would surely open…

But I agree with you that formatting itself doesn't need to be so labor-intensive, once the template and scripts are in place–the point is that humans are superficial and clever packaging is sometimes just as important as what's inside.

MM Otherwise I still think he's gotta hire somebody, so he can concentrate on original content, interviews, and the like.

Absolutely. I see we basically agree. Admittedly I have more a PR angle, and that always concerns more the person and the larger field than the special techniques.

Concerning Otto:At the moment, you are self-isolated from the top blogs and links from those is where the hits come from.

Is this really a problem on the net? But yes, it is partly my impression too. I am simply not so sure why. Imagine for a while, he was cited much more frequently by the people you mentioned. Would he feel similarly isolated to you then?

You can't handle a Taboo and want to be the hero of the masses.

So isn't this about the "public perception" of Phil Weiss position? And how to change it? … How is this related to bringing the story mainstream, make it discussible.

Comment: …Also, re your cites source – that guy really IS an idiot, I suspect at least part of Mathew's frustration had to do with the source – Soup

Soup: do you think Phil Weiss is an "idiot" or were you referring to someone else? I think Weiss is one of the ten best minds on the planet who is wrestling with cutting-edge issues dealing with Mideast politics, Zionism (the ideology and the real world implementation), the Jewish tradition, American culture, etc. People who are far ahead of the curve tend to ruffle many feathers. Do you have a few examples of his "idiocy"? – Sean McBride

Sean, I do think Phil Weiss is an idiot. More importantly I think he's an inflammatory, shit-stirring pseudo-journalistic shock jock who is less interested in providing actual news than he is attaching himself to the insane theory of the day. That in itself would only be about an 8 on the annoyance scale for me but his tendency to immediately flee the scene before he can be held accountable for the hurt and harm kicks him straight up to a 10. I think he's a bad man, in every sense of the world. If you like him then good for you but do consider that a fair portion of your audience is going to immediately ignore anything you say when you're primary source for an argument is someone so inflammatory. You could have had an actual, reasonable discussion in these many, many comments had you instead taken 5 minutes to find the same opinion from someone less likely to be immediately offensive to so many. Instead you chose him and your discussion point was lost to an extended fight defending the extremist opinions of some chappie you, I assume, don't even really know. – Soup

Soup: what specific post by Phil Weiss has annoyed you and why? – Sean McBride

Sean, His entire career has annoyed me, not just the latest iteration on the blog. But this post isn't about Phil Weiss, or at least it wasn't meant to be. I'm unwilling to continue to discuss a guy who annoys me – why torture myself that way? I don't like him, you already have said you do, we're not going to change each others minds and I'm sure we both have better things than play political Sisyphus – Soup

**********************************************

Definitively feature that make the article sharable via the "usual suspect tools" would be helpful.