|
|
E-mail this blog's author, Charly Z:
The blogger sideshow
Are Weblogs Changing Our Culture?
By Kurt Andersen and Andrew Sullivan
September 3, 2002
From Slate:
Kurt Andersen, the author of Turn of the Century, is now at work on his second novel. He's also the host of the public radio program Studio 360. Andrew Sullivan, a senior editor at the New Republic, writes daily for andrewsullivan.com. Slate has asked them to discuss the Weblog phenomenon as well as two new books about blogging, We've Got Blog: How Weblogs Are Changing Our Culture and The Weblog Handbook.
Let's find out what Messrs. Sullivan and Andersen are up to:
Several Salon bloggers have already commented on this day's entry:
- Xian performs a thorough critique of both wonks' observations while
- Scott Rosenberg calls the whole piece a waste of time and recommends reading Xian's review instead. He seems to have missed what
- Sussanah uncovered as she dug out the psychosexual subtext of the witty repartee between A.S. & K.A.
They seem to have covered most of the ground, so I'll pick at some of the smaller morsels, namely...
- Andrew Sullivan put off by the suggestion of a weblog community:
[Rebecca Blood] can write earnestly about a Weblog "community." Aaagghh. The one wonderful thing about blogging from your laptop is that you don't have to deal with other people. You can broadcast alienated, disembodied, disassociated murmurings into a people-free void. You don't have to run something past an editor, or frame your argument to an established group of subscribers. You just say what the hell you want. No wonder ornery libertarian types enjoy it so much and there are so few communitarian-style bloggers. It's a format designed for Unabombers or people, like the estimable Mickey Kaus, who don't quite fit into pre-existing ideologies or political blocs.
Now, I can agree with him that expressing himself without bowing to the expectations of an editor or subscribers can be cathartic. But if he is broadcasting his words into the ether, isn't he expecting an audience to pick them up? An audience which could potentially broadcast from their own weblogs their reactions to his pronouncements, starting whole conversations? An audience that having formed around a common interest could be called, maybe, a community?
- Kurt Andersen holding weblogs at arm's length:
...because blogs tend to be intimate in a way first-person journalism seldom is, even bad or substantively boring blogs are revealing, which can be interesting (up to a point).
...winsomeness is a rarity in professional media and (see kausfiles, for instance) a true blog virtue (up to a point).
Since blogs are a new, more candid, rapid-fire form of the old-fashioned newspaper column—Walter Lippman crossed with Walter Winchell—and if successful columns have always been about a continuing, pseudo-personal "conversation" between columnist and reader, the touches of banal humanizing candor in blogs are delightful (up to a point).
What's the matter, Kurt? Don't want to seem too soft on this whole weblog thing?
As I expected, the weblogging masses have begun reacting to this "blogger sideshow." And, wouldn't you know, Mr. Sullivan incorporates the complaints into his discourse and swiftly tosses them away.
OK, maybe not the first one from Meryl Yourish, which corrects Mr. Sullivan's solipsism by pointing out there are weblog communities: "A quick look around the Internet will show that. Sullivan is a perfect example of the kind of blogger that permeates the blogosphere these days: Ignorant, unknowledgeable about anything save his narrow little slice of blogdom (and that not much), yet thinking that he has been informed from on high as to exactly what constitutes blogging."
Sullivan's answer? He agrees with Yourish and goes on to say he was "merely expressing my own opinion that blogging is more suited to individualism than collectivism... A blog works if it addresses its audience, whether that audience is five or 500 or 5,000. In fact, many blogs, by their precise nature, are never going to get that big. So, why worry about the bigger fish? Enjoy yourselves."
Awright, point for Mr. Sullivan then. Yourish even posted a second entry flushingly accepting Mr. Sullivan's response. "The last thing I expected was for [him] to answer my post... But answer he did, and in such a charming way that I am ready to reclaim him as one of my blogparents. (And I take back all the mean things I said about him, too. Even the ones I deleted before posting.)"
The second weblogger he addresses doesn't get to break his cool, though. The Truth Laid Bear points out an ommission made by Slate when making a panel from Messrs. Sullivan and Adersen: "Slate should have provided a counterweight to [Sullivan's] journablogging heavyweight status. Picking a non-journalist, lesser known blogger to complete a trifecta with Andersen and Sullivan would have made the discussion deeply more interesting."
So how does Mr. Sullivan handle this? He adds the above quote to his entry and, with that, claims to have provided the missing counterweight: "We just did that! You can rectify editorial choices in real time all the time." I don't know man, somehow picking yourself the quotes to counterclaim yours seems as sincere as a used-car salesman's pitch.
Mr. Sullivan goes on to dissect the possibilities and risks of self-publishing through weblogs
...One obvious way in which blogs strengthen independent writers' hands is that when a piece is chopped up, or killed, or mutilated, a writer can now publish it himself if he still thinks it's worth something. But one obvious way in which blogging undermines a writer's independence is that he doesn't get paid anything to speak of. At the rate I'm going, my media criticism may make me unemployable and has already led to a steep decline in free-lance income. So, it's a two-edged thingy.
and considers them a great launching pad for new writers.
...I think the real power will be unleashed by unknown writers finding a way to get their work in front of readers more easily than ever before. The whole process of interning, or begging for work at local papers, sucking up to agents and editors, and so on can now be supplemented by real self-publishing. You can make your own clips! This can only help—however marginally—discover new talent. The discipline of writing for a real paper or magazine is still very, very useful. Blogging well is not as easy as it sometimes looks. But all in all, the new form and new medium can only advance a writerly meritocracy. And that can only be good, no?
I had my doubts on that last point, but going back to Meryl Yourish's second entry, she offers evidence he might be right: "I've gotten published in 'dead-tree' magazines via my blog. It's become a portfolio of my work to show prospective employers. It has also become an asset to me since I've moved to a new town ('Oh, just check my blog for the information you wanted'). It has honed my writing skills and forced me into a daily routine. And it lives or dies on the quality of my work, which suits me just fine."
On his part, Kurt Andersen celebrates the change weblogs have brought to the media
...What the relentless focus of bloggers like you and Kaus on the Times and other big media institutions must surely do is make writers (poor Paul Krugman!) and editors just a wee bit more careful about accuracy, fairness, and all the rest, since they know you overcaffeinated watchdogs are watching, just itching to click Send.
then wonders how much have they changed the media.
Are blogs ever going to drive a transformation of the press as significant as, say, cable TV news has? Nahhh. Providing a self-publishing outlet for professional journalists' rejected print pieces isn't exactly, as we used to say, not so far back in the day, a killer app... As we've learned in every digital realm, the proliferation of groovy new tools to make and distribute media (music, movies, bloggers' pensées, whatever) does not expand the more or less fixed pool of genuine talent in the world.
So is all the talent in the pool currently employed? Maybe that would be the reason Inside.com never took off: all the good reporters were reporting elsewhere.
OK, that was a cheap shot, but before CNN no one foresaw cable TV driving "a transformation of the press" either. Mr. Andersen mentioned the day before, "blogs are a new, more candid, rapid-fire form of the old-fashioned newspaper column," and he builds upon this point.
...as a souped-up column format nesting within larger media entities (a la Kaus, Alterman, and Conason), I think this is probably just the beginning, since those guys, like you, speak to one smallish audience about one smallish set of subjects... There are obviously passionate constituencies and suitable big-name blog voices for other subjects... if more bloggers start being paid by rich institutions like Microsoft (Kaus) and GE (Alterman) to blog, then maybe we can start getting some real reportorial fiber into the very, very starchy blog diet. Which could betoken the beginning of a glorious Third Generation of journalistic blogs with impact and influence that would no longer be in question. Right?
"Starchy blog diet?" Hey, no one said all webloggers are reporters. When people began setting up personal home pages, no one expected them to provide all the news the Times didn't. Same with logs. But if, as he suggests, more media companies pay journalists to report through a weblog format, I'll answer his last "Right?" with a hearty "Hell, right!"
Check also what other Salon bloggers had to say:
- Xian observes these guys still don't get it, while
- Susannah grows bored with their rehashing old arguments about the Web.
Too bad the readership grew dead-bored with this tête-à-tête between Messrs. Sullivan and Andersen, for in its last day Mr. Sullivan put on his political face and got freaky on the liberal bent of weblogs.
But I'll get to that later.
First off, after kissing up to Mr. Andersen ("Kurtie," but really, the fault is Andersen's, who called him "Andy" first), Mr. Sullivan agrees with "Kurtie's" proposal of paying writers to blog professionally.
...I like your idea of just getting some cash and paying, say, five good bloggers to write for a single online mag. In some ways, that's how reviews and magazines started out decades and centuries ago: a few like-minded souls collaborating on a literary-political project. Perhaps blogs—and the technology that enables them—will take us back to the 18th century.
I also agreed with Mr. Andersen that paying writers to publish through a weblog would be a great idea, one that might finally end this kind of discussion about what weblogs are good for. Besides, it's just the same discussion about what the Web is good for that was hashed around 1996. Doesn't that idea of "paying, say, five good bloggers" sound a lot like the same thinking that launched Salon, Feed, Suck... Slate?
And about returning to the 18th century, e-mail was suppossed to do the same for us. And I certainly don't send or receive any novella-size epistles.
Mr. Sullivan then goes to defend the "holy" status of weblogging.
...part of me also likes the informal, this-isn't-what-I-do-for-a-living feel of blogland. It keeps it real. I also think it purifies journalism in a way. I mean, we're writing for free for anybody just because we love it. Compared to, say, the pampered life of a Condé Nast scribe, that's a refreshing spur to write stuff that actually matters, because you can, and say things you believe in without too many worries.
But as a small walk through the independent Web will show, the "this-isn't-what-I-do-for-a-living feel" isn't exclusive to weblogs. And eventually more and more writers will be blogging inside larger publications. Just wait.
At this point, Mr. Sullivan goes crazy on "Kurtie's" proposal of "getting some real reportorial fiber into the very, very starchy blog diet."
As to the protein, I think you miss a point. Our protein is the linkage. The greatest thing about blogs is that you can easily analyze the data news bloggers are writing about and make up your own mind. So the blogger's opinions are more transparent, more easily rebutted, and therefore demand greater care or style. No dead-tree writing can do that. And traditional writing online cannot quite capture that interchange between source and analysis. Again, it's win-win, I think. Not that blogs will replace the protein; but we all know it helps to have a balanced diet. (I think I'll retire that metaphor now.)
OK, yeah, whatever he said.
Oh, all right. Let's try to parse it almost sentence by sentence:
- "As to the protein, I think you miss a point. Our protein is the linkage."
- "The greatest thing about blogs is that you can easily analyze the data news bloggers are writing about and make up your own mind."
- "So the blogger's opinions are more transparent, more easily rebutted, and therefore demand greater care or style."
- "No dead-tree writing can do that."
- "And traditional writing online cannot quite capture that interchange between source and analysis. Again, it's win-win, I think."
- "Not that blogs will replace the protein; but we all know it helps to have a balanced diet."
- "(I think I'll retire that metaphor now.)"
Well, yes, most everyone uses their weblog to link to interesting things. It is not a requirement, though.
As Scott Rosenberg has pointed out, if "as journalists moved onto the Web, [they had welcomed] their new ability to use links — to document their sources, explain obscure facts and terms, point people to deeper reading on a subject or just offer wittily ironic asides," some online publications would offer the same transaparency. Maybe that's something these same publications don't want their readers to have.
See the previous bullet.
No argument here.
Again, see the second bullet.
So what's the protein then? The links or the writing? Methinks Mr. Sullivan just dismissed his whole argument.
Great idea!
But he does score some points for correctly describing the possibilities from weblogs' constant posting model and the use of reader feedback.
Blogs also have the ability to keep up pressure on people. Because we can post almost hour after hour, we can really force people to respond or react to our claims or arguments... The rat-a-tat-tat of a blog really does have an impact a one-off piece cannot. And it often metastasizes with input from readers. The dirty secret of my blog is that my readers have as much input as I do. I can raise a subject, and within minutes, I'll have a dozen other links, reflections, refutations on the very same topic... The traditional top-down form of reporting can't do this as well. And the open-ended, open-minded culture of the blog form helps generate exactly the kind of detail and nuance that some mass media miss.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce the sideshow's promised main attraction: the furry, the freaky, the liberal, "Andy," the blogger geek!
So, now let me get more grandiose. I think over the past couple of decades, liberalism in its classic sense has been under threat. Not just from crazy theocrats abroad but from P.C. paternalism and religious-right activism at home. The formation of solid camps of thought, and the punishment of heretics, and the maintenance of orthodoxy on all sides have inhibited a free discourse in ideas. And part of the reason for that was the limit on the numbers of vehicles for expression. After all, there aren't that many genuinely intellectual mags in this country, and the battle to influence them can be intense. But the fragmentation of media, accelerated by blogs, can break this up some and allow more complicated or unusual voices to emerge, without their having to ask permission or fight for space or suck up to people already in charge. If, say, the writers at Indegayforum had had no option but to try and get into the established gay press—which has been, until recently, extremely P.C.—it would have taken up a huge amount of time and led to enormous angst and wasted energy. Blogging circumvented that. It widens the sphere of possible voices exponentially. That's wonderful news for the culture as a whole. And for liberalism in its deepest sense.
Scary stuff. And "grandiose" indeed, but there's nothing in weblogging that makes it intrinsically liberal. It can be used by conservatives as well. And isn't Mr. Sullivan a conservative himself?
At least Mr. Andersen recognizes the political aspect is just one part of what weblogs are about. "(...day to day, a lot of blogging will always be tedious wankery, vanity publishing in a hot new form.)" Yet, he still leaves open the possibility of them improving the political discourse: "If a blog-inspired recombination of the old left and right intellectual camps into more nuanced and lively new camps really continues apace, then maybe we can move beyond a WWF politics dominated by scripted rassling matches between the Tom DeLays and the Dick Gephardts."
He then raises some doubts about how a weblog-magazine would be work:
...truly great magazines in any medium, as you know, require an inspired editorial dictator (or junta) to make choices about the components of the magazine's mix that day or week or month. Great magazines are great as a result of a million deliberate and semiconscious combinations and juxtapositions of articles and pictures and charts and design and all the rest of it. It is, to use the discredited mot juste, synergy. So, there's an inherent tension between the gleeful, kooky, ultra-independence of blog-style journalism and the orchestral nature of magazines. Should your explosion of new aggregated-blog journals occur, it will be interesting to watch how smart editors deal with that tension.
But some webloggers have already figured out how to bring that editorial control to the format. No biggie here. At least from a technical point of view.
And then he offers an intriguing insight: weblogging is not for everybody.
...I've always thought that particular writers (and editors) are temperamentally and intellectually suited to particular frequencies—there are daily writers, weekly writers, monthly writers, book writers. Some people can successfully and happily straddle a couple of categories, occasionally three. The blog, obviously, extends this frequency spectrum to the hourly and beyond. In other words, there is a peculiar rat-a-tat-tat blogging temperament, a sensibility that craves and thrives in the perpetual fray. Everyone doesn't have it. For instance, I really do not.
Hey, Kurt, don't knock it until you've tried it. Have you?
As a closer, "Kurtie" congratulates "Andy" on all the lip service he gets from his readers. "They really, really like you." Well, la-di-da to you.
"It's been a pleasure."
Not for the readers it wasn't.
Time to close the sideshow stage.
