Blogging and malignancy
The 5th comment of 373 comments on the first shooting story at the Planet Blacksburg site is by someone named AJ in JAX: "Chalk up another victory for 'gun free zones.' When will governments realize that stripping abiding gun carrying citizens' ability to carry only makes them targets?"
And the argument over gun rights continues for another hundred or so comments, complete with name-calling and pleas for civility.
I thought of that as I pondered Sue's thoughtful, plaintive post yesterday about the state of the local blogging community. (I wanted to respond yesterday but the events of the day waylaid me.) As the horror unfolded in Blacksburg, the comment thread essentially took two tracks with one group arguing angrily over gun rights and another exchanging information and sympathy, each ignoring the other. We've been here before.
Each blog is a community with rules set by the host. Some are wide open, letting everyone come and play as they like. Others have fences and rules with someone watching the gate. Takes all kinds. Like the real world, as the blogging community grows, some people with different modes of behavior are bound to come and act out. Like the real world, there are some neighborhoods I don't wander because they hold little appeal or I don't feel safe.
We keep our blogs pretty open -- although some of those banned or ignored would object to that characterization. Our rules are pretty loose, too. No personal attacks. No profanity. But silliness, unfair insinuations and irrelevance are tolerated. So are stupidity, raised voices and a bit of name-calling, particularly if you are a public persona. As a newspaper, we believe that openness to ideas and debate, even that which is considered silly, irrelevant and loud, is part of our obligation. Does it scare more constructive commenters away? Probably. But I think community will grow and prosper if the host keeps working at it, and the good will eventually outnumber the bad.
Could be wrong, but I'm not ready to quit it yet.
For me, comments are transparent. Reasonable readers can quickly grasp who is going off half-cocked and who is trying to have an open-minded debate. On this blog, I've learned who to engage with and who to ignore. Those I ignore seem to know I ignore them. Why they keep coming back is a mystery to me -- I would think they have better uses for their time -- but I don't spend much time thinking about it.
It does seem as if the blogging community here has split into factions, with all the predictable behaviors that factions have, confrontation being one. To me, that's a natural growth cycle. It will right itself and evolve with work and the kinds of discussions Sue has started.
Comments (14)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
John,
What was up with the article about the VT shooting this morning...on the second page of the "front page" the article was either completely out of order or I was reading it incorrectly. Maybe you can shed some light on that…it was the lower article on the page by the way…thanks---Nick
Posted on April 17, 2007 9:59 AM
I just wish I could turn on the TV and get some real news. Each and every station is nothing but 24/78 stories about the VT shooting. Most of it is speculation, heresay, and third and fourth hand accounts of what someone heard someone else say.
I agree that it's a big story, but you can only repeat the phrase "This hasn't been confirmed, but..." so many times.
Until the investigation is complete we won't know all the facts, so quite guessing about it and repeating rumors.
Posted on April 17, 2007 10:33 AM
Nick, not sure which article you mean. Can you give me the headline?
Jaycee, I think you're going to have to get used to that. With all that time to fill and such a huge story, that's the way reporting is going these days.
Posted on April 17, 2007 11:32 AM
John,
Sorry don't have my paper here at work...however it was one of your cover stories on the front page about the VT shootings...there were two if I remember correctly...and then where ever it was continued later in the paper it seemed to be out of order in the continuing section of the article....no big deal just thought I would see if maybe I mis-read...or if as it appeared it was significantly out of order.
Thanks---Nick
Posted on April 17, 2007 11:37 AM
Both seem right the way I read them, Nick. Anyone else have that problem?
Posted on April 17, 2007 11:41 AM
I stand corrected, Nick. We did have a few lines of dropped type in one story, which also ended mid-sentence. We corrected that during the press run and most papers got the corrected version.
Sorry about that.
Posted on April 17, 2007 11:47 AM
no worries...just wondering if I was being a dummy and reading the wrong way...Nick
Posted on April 17, 2007 11:50 AM
I missed this one yesterday. As per the status quo, the usual suspects praise Sue (and link the post).
And the usual suspects call her out.
As one of the bloggers targeted by Sue's "thoughtful and plaintive" name-calling (and as one you routinely ignore, and yes, I know it), I've posted a rebuttal to her (dis)missive.
Posted on April 17, 2007 6:36 PM
That a call for civility requires a "rebuttal" might just nutshell what's wrong 'round these parts. Ya think?
I didn't realize there was a "con" position to acting responsibly.
In a word? Heh.
Posted on April 18, 2007 8:17 AM
Here's what I think. I think that "reasonable readers" understand that putting up a post entitled "malignant narcissism" . . . a post that specifically targeted bloggers you don't like (be it for their political or religious leanings - or the simple fact that when you HIT AND RUN, they chase you down) is the height of IRresponsibilty . . . particularly for somebody that fancies herself to be GSO's "blogger-mommy".
I think your motives are indeed "transparent" and I've said so. I'm seeing more and more of this in recent posts by long-standing bloggers who seem resentful and jealous of the newbies on the block who are not here just to suck up to the powers-that-be.
Far from John's notion that you've "started a discussion", all you've done is polarize this polarized "community" further, and marginalize the already marginalized: For example (At the risk of being slammed for going "off topic"), JR & company ignoring my story of greed, fraud, perjury & contempt in local heatlhcare.
I also fail to understand how a newspaper editor could characterize your post as "thoughtful and plaintive" . . . as opposed to provocative and offensive.
"Rebuttal" and dissent are a healthy part of any debate in a free society - yes? Or are we all just supposed to agree with you all of the time?
Posted on April 18, 2007 12:39 PM
I find it ironic that this is one of the more civil exchanges you've had on a post with at least five comments.
Posted on April 18, 2007 10:34 PM
The nastiness all took place at Sue's Beau. Sometimes it's not in the "innocous" post, but in the link.
Posted on April 19, 2007 11:48 AM
The nastiness all took place at Sue's Beau. Sometimes it's not in the "innocous" post, but in the link.* Dr. Mary Johnson
Yep and it was all your fault Doc! Right?
Blogging is not the answer! Information is! And that is the true reality of the internet.
Posted on April 19, 2007 8:50 PM
"Blogging is not the answer"
Alas, Connie, I believe you are right.
Posted on April 20, 2007 9:48 PM