Blog talk

if:book points me to a great post on blogging by Juan Cole (who is a first-rate political blogger, btw). Cole is discussing political blogging, but his insights transfer pretty cleanly to litblogs.

The difference . . . is that we are independent actors, not part of a small set of multi-billion dollar corporations. The difference is that we are not under the constraints of making a 15% profit. The difference is that we are a distributed information system, whereas MSM is like a set of stand-alone mainframes. The difference is that we can say what we damn well please.

If we were the mainstream media (perhaps better thought of as corporate media), we would care if you threatened to stop reading us. Because although we might be professional news people, we would have the misfortune to be working for corporations that are mainly be about making money.

We would be ordered to try to avoid saying anything too controversial (and I don't mean "Crossfire" controversial), because we would be calculating what would bring in 15% profits per annum on our operating capital. Would hours and hours of television "reportage" and discussion of Michael Jackson or of Terri Schiavo or Scott Peterson (remember?) bring in viewers and advertising dollars? Then that is what we would be giving the public. Bread and circuses.

These points are (somewhat) well-known, but are still worth repeating. The fact is that no matter what comparisons the MSM wants to make w/r/t itself and bloggers, we are not the same species.

Actually, there's plenty of vitrol going both ways, and maybe that's how it should be. I'll be the first to admit that in some repsects bloggers fall short of journalists, but there is virtue in that. On blogs there are no editors, no oversight, no profit margins or parent corporations to be aware of. This freedom makes blogging an intensely personal medium.

Blogs are real-time, passionate, more conducive to conversations and interesting thoughts. Bloggers have the luxury of making an ass of themselves because, after all, it's just a stupid post, and none of us are above saying sorry. Journalists are much more constrained in what they can say and how they can say it.

I'm not advocating irresponsible blogging. Bloggers should uphold themselves to high standards of accuracy and honesty. But if we do happen to shoot off with an ill-conceived opinion or a perhaps-too-personal post, it can be very interesting, and often leads to some worthwhile discussion. Journliasts just can't do that.

Comments

[dave munger]

Good points.

One thing I do worry about, however, is the tyranny of the stats page. Bloggers have near instantaneous feedback as to who's reading them, and so they may be tempted to write for hits, rather than simply writing what they are interested in.

In some ways, I admire most the pages of bloggers who say with surprise "I received an e-mail today, and it turns out someone actually *reads* this blog! Maybe I should post more often!!!" They're the ones who are clearly doing it simply because they want to. I'm not sure the same can be said for, say, Juan Cole.

[Scott]

Dave,

Agreed. There is a difference between Juan Cole and the less-visited bloggers. I think it's slighter than the difference between blogs & MSM, but you're right that there's differentiation within the 'sphere itself.

Writing for hits is an issue in the 'sphere. I think this takes us back to talk radio and DFW's "Host," where I remember we discussed the temptation to be controversial (in both mediums) because controversy sells.

[tito]

to me a 'blog' is simply a convenient content management system -- i can easily post whatever comes to mind. My particuluar 'blog' has no specific mission, any more than I personally, do (other than the givens - Truth, Justice, and The American Way)

Given the dominance of movable type and its variants, most blogs tend to drift towards the same style/appearance (as do most higher-traffic non-blog corporate web sites for that matter - a case where the tools & technology guide the product). I think this visual homogeny lets people make the easy leap to use the term blog as a catchall description for some sort of ethos that I don't think exists. To try and guesstimate/define blogs motivations/goals/agendas/etc in toto simply because they share a delivery mechanism that is different from other internet media outlets is wishful thinking at best.

The only real distinction between mainstream media and "blogs" is really popularity (in my opinion, of course) - and if/when blogs become as popular as say, USA Today, then what? Are they the new mainstream media -- or do the connotations of 'blog' imply something else? What makes a blog a blog? Is it the same thing that makes music 'Alternative'? Distribution? Popularity? Money? Quality? Perspective?

Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog