In a sensationalist piece that has been e-mailed to every blogger's inbox this morning, the New York Times has added another bit of fuel to the "journalists vs. bloggers" fire: Bloggers will die... soon. Using a scant two examples of prolific bloggers dying in the past few months, New York Times decides that these deaths are due to constant stress, long hours and the need to always "break" stories. My, that doesn't sound like being a reporter at all!

To be sure, there is no official diagnosis of death by blogging, and the premature demise of two people obviously does not qualify as an epidemic. There is also no certainty that the stress of the work contributed to their deaths. But friends and family of the deceased, and fellow information workers, say those deaths have them thinking about the dangers of their work style.

NYT "exposes" the blogger pay system, which -- excuse our excessive eyerolling -- is oftentimes related to how many people have "clicked through" and read stories. Bloggers are often given a base pay with bonuses for above-average readership. A little akin to "ratings" for television shows, n'est-ce pas?

One of the most competitive categories is blogs about technology developments and news. They are in a vicious 24-hour competition to break company news, reveal new products and expose corporate gaffes.

To the victor go the ego points, and, potentially, the advertising. Bloggers for such sites are often paid for each post, though some are paid based on how many people read their material. They build that audience through scoops or volume or both.

So, really, what the New York Times is trying to say is this: if you care about bloggers, you'll visit our sites more often and read it more than newspapers and magazines. We give you the news fastest and if you don't read this, we'll die. Kind of like Tinker Bell, except we're sarcastic and snarky and we don't fix shit for free.

Pic by Claire L. Evans