The wisdom of the crowds, part I
As more mainstream media types venture into the blogosphere, more journalists are surprised by the vitriol here. It's doesn't lend itself to a civil discussion, they might well say. Heck, I've said the same.
From Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice:
If someone disagrees with someone a common response across party or ideological lines is "fury" rather than calm counter points of discussion. Just read comments on most blogs (ours here are more civil than many). Or posts. After you read blogs after a while you start to wonder: is there ANY day when there is NO outrage over an issue, a person or another blog?
The journalistic cringe over reader comments is an odd thing, too, because it's not as if newspaper folk don't get this sort of feedback all the time.
Martin Stabe quotes a British columnist who says that blogging, "is the equivalent of going to the pub and listening to complete bores sounding off."
Well, sort of. In the spirit of the comments, let's examine what you'll find if you wandered into that bar. Frankly, my experience is that some you'd share a beer with, some you'd not share so much as a men's room with.
They are:
* The loudmouth guy. He argues about everything. His position is always the opposite of yours, on principle alone. Often it is opposite of the facts, too. "The Bears were the better team last Sunday and would have won the Super Bowl had Rex Grossman completed three more passes for touchdowns." And he'll shout at you until you give in. Or leave.
* The omniscient guy. He'll tell you what you're thinking and what you'd do and why you'd do it. If you object and point out how he's wrong, he'll say that you're just covering up. Normally involves some stereotyping. "Typical behavior of a New Joisey Dukie."
* The one-trick pony. He has one issue and voices it every chance he gets. "Yeah, Carolina's having a good season, but watch Duke. Coach K is going to have them where he wants them. Yeah, that snow coming down is beautiful. Did you know most of Duke's starters come from up north where this snow is nothing?"
* The angry guy. He brings that fury mentioned above to everything he writes. He calls it is passion, but in fact, the people around him are either laughing at him or are edging away.
* The friends, who actually make up most of the crowd in the bar. They don't immediately attract your attention because they aren't shouting at the top of their lungs. Instead, they are talking -- maybe arguing, maybe joking around -- but mostly talking among themselves, gossiping, laughing, listening and learning.
Most of the commenters on our blogs are from the first four. Nothing wrong with that. It might even be natural in town squares. At the same time, it's not the cause for dismay that many journalists regard it. These folk are engaging, questioning and arguing. You can learn from all five commenters. Just get a thicker skin. You'll discover you're not loved or appreciated by everyone. Guess what? You never were. With most, it's not personal, even though some will try to make it so. Just don't think that they are the majority voices because they shout the loudest or monopolize the conversation.
Stabe: The problem, of course, is that alongside bores and crazies, pubs also entertain experts in any given field discussing the issues they encounter in their professional lives. There are also plenty of rational, ordinary people with interesting stories to tell about the challenges they face in their lives.
Frankly, I'm interested in the passersby. These are the ones who drop in and look around for someone they know or just a nice place to have a beer. Some come in and sit down, and some leave after a few moments. There isn't anyone they know. Or they have other places to be. Or they don't like what they see. Inviting them to stay longer is a step.
Coming next: A conversation about commenters and citizen journalists with Lisa Williams of Watertown, Ma.
Comments (11)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
what about the "should be doing work, but always checks bloglines and feels like it is his duty to comment on every post that even remotely relates to his interests" guy?
eh..
Posted on February 12, 2007 3:47 PM
"As more mainstream media types venture into the blogosphere, more journalists are surprised by the vitriol here. It's doesn't lend itself to a civil discussion, they might well say. Heck, I've said the same."
Yep, I've said the same too.
Posted on February 12, 2007 7:30 PM
It's why I thought that Converge South/blogging builds community idea was a bunch of hooey.
Then John Edwards tied his campaign to blogging via the Ed Cone, et all blogging/internet strategy in the Chapel Hill think tank meeting, and hired bloggers for his campaign. The rest is history. Great community building, eh?
Posted on February 12, 2007 7:52 PM
oh god.. there is a part 2?
I can't wait... more ways for JR to insult those of us who comment on the blogs... it seems only those who nod smartly while stroking their imaginary goatee and agree are seen as "good"
I guess the discussion here should just consist of "me too" (see any of Beau Dure's posts)
wow...
Posted on February 12, 2007 10:12 PM
Sean, I also omitted the guy who's cruising for chicks.
jim, it has nothing to do with agreeing with me. The same holds true on the letters blog, Allen's blog and The Chalkboard.
Posted on February 13, 2007 12:04 PM
I'm the angry guy, with a bit of omniscience on a good day.
But the truth is, I wouldn't have to be blogging at all if the so-called mainstream media were doing it's job.
Your collective performance as watchdogs over the past six years deserves nothing but scorn - and no benefit of the doubt. And through your collective arrogance and pandering to the lowest common denominator, you (not you personally) are inexorably driving your industry into irrelevance.
Our group blog at BlueNC now attracts nearly 1500 visitors a day - up from zero one year ago. Maybe some people are laughing, and maybe some are edging away, but the fact of the matter is, we're providing a forum for plenty of people who are fed up with the mainstream media's complicity in the demise of democracy.
Posted on February 13, 2007 1:17 PM
its, not it's
I hate it when I do that.
Posted on February 13, 2007 1:18 PM
Yeah, Anglico, the apostrophe issue is another post. :)
I bet you would be blogging, one way or another, but that's just me with my "omniscient guy" suit on. And sometimes I wear my "angry guy" persona. But no matter. I'd never argue that mainstream media suits everyone or fits everyone's needs. I'm not begrudging other blogs; I've always welcomed all comers.
Posted on February 13, 2007 1:28 PM
You're probably right.
Actually I WAS blogging back before the Inauspicious Rise of the Child King, but all my work involved novels, short-fiction and and religion. I didn't spend a second on politics.
I really do long for those days when I was disengaged and happy. But with my children now going out into the big bad world, it's hard to sit back and let the chips fall where they may.
I enjoy reading your stuff.
Posted on February 13, 2007 3:12 PM
More on the wisdom of crowds from the NYT.
I've thought of the pub analogy with regards to banning and editing comments. If you own a pub, you kick out someone who's causing trouble, and if the pub is in your basement, you only let in people you want. You might let a stranger in conditionally and if he acts up, you would 'politely' ask him to leave.
Posted on February 14, 2007 1:07 PM
So what's with the Dukie fixation? :)
I'm from Georgia, incidentally. And one former N&R copy desker from New Jersey (via Chapel Hill) HATED the New Jersey/Duke connection.
Posted on February 15, 2007 3:52 PM