You can use a name that is generally understood to mean something similar to what your blog or business is all about, or you can use a name that means something other than what you have to offer, or you can just plain make up a name. Exxon is a made up name. The company was previously well known (starting as Standard Oil and then becoming Jersey Standard) and they wanted a new distinctive name. Among other things, the company had a pretty big marketing budget.
Today, anyone with a very small budget can have a blog and publish their own content and other PR, but everything (including gaining mindshare on the web) takes some resources (time, money, effort, etc.)
Regardless of what name you pick, after that you have to provide something of value. Even if you name your site heavenonearth.com it doesn't mean people will automatically find you or fully understand or appreciate what you have to offer.
Think of it like a user interface. You could label the off button "on" and the on button "off". Or you could label each button "guess what this one does". Most people would probably figure it out, but why make it harder than it needs to be?
If people find you and understand what you have to offer and you deliver according to how you set expectations, things have a chance of working out. If you want to make extra steps in the process by requiring people to study your blog to try to figure out what the relationship is between your name and your value proposition, maybe that's a good strategy for attracting curious and patient people. You could name your business Jet Planes, and your web site Gorillas, and your products Basketballs. These names would of course be hard to pin down due to the practicality of securing URLs and potentially IP rights, but even if you could, why would you want to use naming conventions that cause people to work harder at understanding your role in the market and your offerings?
Making a coherent marketing plan might help, or you could have no marketing plan and overwhelm the competition with your superior value to the point that naming conventions make no difference. It's possible.
Without a doubt there are many examples of successful companies that have names which don't tie clearly to their role in the market or what they sell. And there are plenty of examples of companies that took some good artistic license. Apple Computer doesn't make (edible) apples, but they still do make some computers, and right out of the gate they found a way to make a nearly universal symbol (the apple with a bite out of it) their symbol. It was a thoughtful naming convention.
In my opinion substance often trumps form, and often rightfully so. And if form (including a name or other label) has no value leave it out. But if form has some value and it can be additive to the substance (if for no other reason than signaling intent), why not leverage the combination?