Sophie Masson has just alerted her Troppo readers to a piece she has published at Online Opinion on blogging. I’ll leave it to your judgement as to whether the seemingly negative characterisation she draws of comments threads is fair or not. I tend to agree with Kim on this one.
I’ve emailed Graham Young at Online Opinion asking if he’d be interested in a piece pointing out the positive characteristics of blog debates. I’m not interested in directly refuting Sophie’s arguments, but would prefer to accentuate the positive. I’d be interested in whether LP readers could get together on this thread and we could come to some positions together about what’s good about blog discussion.
Update: Graham Young has very kindly accepted my offer of a piece on blog debates, so I think it’d be great if we could get our heads together on this project.
Editorial Note: I’ll be offline for a few hours so I’ll just remind everyone of the comments policy here at LP. If you want to address the arguments Sophie made, I feel that it would be more appropriate to do so at her post or at the feedback section on Online Opinion. What I’d like to do here is accentuate the positive. So please address yourself to the question of what’s good about blog comments threads.
Elsewhere: More discussion of Sophie’s article at Road to Surfdom and by Naomi at wsacaucus.org. Phil puts his opinion very forcefully at Citystate while Jason puts his very concisely at Catallaxy and Andrew Bartlett ponders related questions about the influence or otherwise of political blogging.
For me, the primary positive thing about both (non-personal) blogs and about their comment threads is simply the oodles of smart people factor. In real life I’m surrounded by computer programmers, and their range of political/philosophcal/sociological opinions is very narrow and largely anecdotal or reflexive. Blogs and their comments are where I find smart people with a range of interests. They’re my salon (or would be, if I commented more).
That’s naughty Harry. I’ll be after you with a slipper if you are not careful.
Quickly —
The violence is cumulatively tedious, but mostly because we are short of a left wing bearpit.
I am sick to death of straw man arguments because they get us absolutely nowhere. Why would I want some ignorant Right wing know-all telling me I am wrong because I clearly want to bring back Stalin and personally crush the life out of Teri Schiavo and barcode babies at birth?
I have learnt to fight better on the blogosphere, though mostly from reading. I don’t like stepping into the arena unless I really know I know what I am talking about.
Academicism is also tedious because it does not relate to human experience.
One of the great promises of the internet, as far as I am concerned, is the power of testimony.
We occasionally notice it around mental health and social welfare issues, for instance. Some toad like Carr claims to be improving care while closing hospitals, and somewhere on the blogosphere he gets answered by someone who knows exactly what the consequences are. Some parts of the comments at http://andrewbartlettonline.blogspot.com/2005/04/more-on-mental-health-our-crowded.html for instance.
And I do think we are inching our way forward into new ways of describing our policy choices. Can I think of any examples? Maybe Iraq.
And we are daily showing up the gang of op-ed mongrels who infest our print and radio media. “Not those tired old tits again”.
David, I should note before I log off that I deleted Harry’s comment, and emailed him to explain why.
vigorous debate can be fun. name calling and sarcasm can be fun when done cleverly. some people need to get out of their shells.
I thought Sophie’s piece was pretty shallow, but I understand why Mark would prefer to talk past it rather than engage her argument (wouldn’t want to be accused of another witch-hunt).
Like Jason, I enjoy a vigorous stoush now and then. But I also enjoy the more reasonable threads you find at John Quiggin’s or Catallaxy, or the madcap humour of Ausculture or Ms Fits. The great thing about the blogosphere is that there’s a tremendous variety of styles out there if you know where to look. Perhaps those of us who don’t enjoy comments threads are reading the wrong blogs?
I remember reading somebody’s remark yesterday that blog comments threads tend to sit within the attitudinal framework defined by their authors. That may also explain why certain threads became excessively heated. I frequently find Troppo frustrating because of Ken’s occasional mood swings. At times he demands deep civility, but then devotes posts to stirring up his opponents. Thankfully, Don Arthur is usually there to calm things down with a fresh post.
While the shitfights can become tiresome, on the positive side there is also genuine calling to account, the ability to question, and, lo and behold, even at times shifting of opinions. Sources like newspapers do allow debate and only publish corrections to factual errors in the rare circumstances. I’d rather get my dose of op-ed from a blog where it can be scrutinized, if imperfectly.
correction: …newspapers do not allow debate…
“One of the great promises of the internet, as far as I am concerned, is the power of testimony. We occasionally notice it around mental health and social welfare issues, for instance. Some toad …claims to be improving care while closing hospitals, and somewhere on the blogosphere he gets answered by someone who knows exactly what the consequences are.”
David makes a great point. Anyone who has been on the inside of a news story knows how the media routinely get it wrong, then there is the political spin from both sides. Bloggers can go straight to an audience without having to negotiate the shoals of editorial policy.
The difficulty one has in “engaging with Sophie’s arguments” is twofold. Jason wrote at Troppo:
I agree with that but the precise problem is that she doesn’t say that she is just reflecting on her own experience at Online Opinion but implies that she is making some sort of objective judgement of the ’sphere as a whole. So I’m inclined to say, as I said on her thread, that her opinion is simply that – but she writes as if she is stating fact that readers of her op/ed, many of whom are probably unfamiliar with blogs, would understand as such.
The second problem was well canvassed on another Troppo thread, and very well summed up by Brian.
To accentuate the positive, though, I love blog discussions because they inform, they delight, they educate and I enjoy the wit and the cut and thrust. Rob Corr puts it well when he made this comment about threads here at LP.
Kim, just an editorial note – that’s fair comment I think because you’re engaging with the broader issues and doing so civilly and I also note that you said your piece directly to Sophie at Troppo.
Sure blogs go off on tangents, but I reckon verbal discussions/arguments get derailed easier simply because there is no record. With blogs you can go back to any specific post and actually prove “But you originally said this…”
Also, when you want to discuss several points simultaneously you can. This is simply impossible in a verbal discussion. Threads can branch and run simultaneously – this is immensely powerful and useful. Then they can be combined later sometimes.
Possibly the best bit about the record is when you write something really insightful or witty you can brag to everyone how much of an unfettered genius you are. You can print them out and peruse them on a rain day… not that I’m saying… that .. I … do … that…
Bum.
The ability to step in and out is simply wonderful. And the ability to actually see the shape of a discussion/arguement is great. It’s a combination of watching the code of the matrix and a game of rugby. “Woah the lady in red!” “Yeah, and she just tackled Mertyns!” The sources at your fingertips is an immense help – in a verbal you have to trust the person is telling the truth (not a problem among friends, but hard amongst random people just giving their two cents worth).
Ah, and due to all these two cents worth becomes, like, a dollar fifty at least!
To wrap up quickly: blogs are the perfect conversation.
No, I’ll go further: blogs are perfect.
I love them.
And I love you.
Yes, all of you.
Even Evil P.
This is the best Christmas ever.
Well said, Harry!
I’ve often wondered if Jerry Cornelius wanders the blogosphere as he does the multiverse:
What’s good about blog comment threads? Two-fifth’s of three-eighth’s of sweet fuck all! Let’s be honest here, Mark. A Blog comment thread is NOT real-time, it’s not immediate and it’s subject to the respondents hanging onto their browser waiting for someone…anyone…to respond to their recent comment. I don’t know about other bloggers, but I do have a life and very small time in the evenings to do what I want to do in the blogging line.
That’s why I much prefer the real-time interaction of an online chat medium, be it IRC, which I have already setup, or MSN, et al. I’ve done the forum thing and for me at least, blog comments, and forums have whiskers on.
well, Niall, I’m not sure whose comment threads you mostly inhabit. perhaps your own with its registration/echo chamber? who cares if it’s not real time? that’s not the point. the average blog thread commenter is smarter than the average bear. again it’s quality that matters.
IRC/MSN – sorry dude, I associate that with corpulent pimply teenagers with a milkshake in one hand and jerking off with the other.
I’m with Niall. Harry’s original comment—whatever it was—got deleted, and probably rightly so. Bloggers can advocate democracy, but thankfully few practice it. On that path lies the racist, sectarian wasteland of Tim Blair’s threads.
Democracy is in the streets, not the internet.
Liam, I should also clarify that there was nothing overly offensive about Harry’s comment – it was a very fine judgement call.
Don’t tell me you don’t really enjoy participating in comments threads. If so, why?
As you well know, I love the cut and thrust of blog threads. I just don’t pretend it’s democratic.
Democracy involves the sharing and contesting of power, and if you can tell me what political power is involved in the running and commenting of a blog, I’d be more than happy to know. And don’t start on ‘the discourse’. If you can delete somebody’s comment, you own the discourse.
Not that I’m advocating absolute free speech—as I said before, on that path lie Tim Blair creatures attributing the ills of the world to Muslims, Arabs, communists and leftists, a dangerous conflated minority.
Liam, I think Glen was on the money with his comments on a previous thread about power always being at stake in any sort of conversation. Nor is debate in the “public political sphere” democratic. Someone always calls the shots, and someone always sets the terms. But the blogosphere is relatively more democratic, and that can’t be a bad thing.
You’ll believe that until I get to delete your comments, you pinko, spiky haired, po-mo, Bronco-supporting stooge.
Power is always at stake, I agree, I’m as po-mo as the next history PhD student at a sandstone university. How many frequent commenters do you have? How many enrolled voters are there in Australia, a relatively insignificant country in an undemocratic world?
The point about power is implicit in your comment whether or not you’re po/mo, Liam.
And how many voters generally inform themselves and converse about politics? As you’d know, there are reasons inherent in our political system why that’s not the case. I fail to see your point.
Oh, and I don’t support the Broncos. Gave up on League after the Superleague fiasco. In any event, things were never the same after the Brisbane competition was destroyed effectively by the takeover by Sydney based ARL honchos. Brisbane football was always more open, less defensive and generally better than Sydney league. Go the mighty Diehards!
[since we're both doing civility here!]
lol
“name calling and sarcasm can be fun when done cleverly”
Liam you have just exemplified Jason’s earlier point.
Yeah, I’m a bit leery of saying it’s democratic.
It is participative, sure.
It is equality – which I think is the kicker.
Liam wrote “Bloggers can advocate democracy, but thankfully few practice it.”
Are you drawing a distinction between mob-rule and democracy, here?
Please expand on this.
I’m always civil. I just extend the concept of civility.
My point is that blogs are privately owned spaces, not public ones, and therefore inherently undemocratic. I wouldn’t hesitate to delete a racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise offensive comment from my blog. I, therefore, have authoritarian and unaccountable power. That is, over what the three or four people who actually read my blog get to read.
We all read Cut Price Commentariat for the NRL reports, Liam
But your readers know what you encourage and what you reject as unacceptable. Just as LP has a comments policy. It’s like Rob says – the poster sets the tone, and as Rob also says, some of the problems at Troppo stem from inconsistent definitions of civility, as many of the people on the thread Kim linked to above, including Brian who documented his case.
You get a much better deal on blogs than trying to talk back to Johnny Howard (or to be fair – PJK – as I well remember from the 3 month delay in responding to letters from our branch which then read “The Treasurer has noted your correspondence with interest”). Your counter might be to say we should join political parties, but as you’ve observed before, debates within the ALP aren’t always characterised by civility, and power certainly plays a role in who gets listened to (and factional affiliation).
Anyway, I’m off to watch Lateline. I’ll see if ranting at the tv set (or trying to engage it in rational debate even) is satisfying…
Aye, I’ve been considering giving AFL reports, but Rafe has gotten there before me. So I’ll just confine by Swans barracking to there.
Sure, Mark, you get a better deal on blogs, which is why I encourage their use amongst my comrades and friends. I agree, if only Sussex Street would take the time to allow comments on their actions, so much would change. What we have, though, is a participative hobby. No more.
You know, Mark, if I were in a particularly mean mood, I might be tempted to remark on the fact that Sophie gets asked to do op-ed pieces – and plenty of them – and you it seems have to chase them
Ouch!
A tad OT, Rob. And you mean? I can’t believe it! Not a cat person!
Sophie of course is a far more established writer than I in her career and do we actually know who asked whom about her piece? Regardless, when you’re just starting out you have to put your work out there somehow. It’s not an index of quality just renown.
But let’s focus – I remind people the topic is what do you like about commenting on blogs…
I love the stoush, baby. Always have, always will.
My mistake, Rob – Sophie wrote – “I was asked recently by the editors of Online Opinion”…
Just to get back on topic, I was interested by Mary’s comment at the top of the thread. Is there anyone else who enjoys this form of interaction because it’s more informed or more interesting than say the proverbial “water cooler” conversation? I think Harry made some similar points.
Btw – Harry has posted the 1000th comment on the blog. He wins ——— a two year’s free subscription to LP! And a copy of EP’s new bestelling expose of Swedish sperm theft… (sold separately and sent in a brown paper wrapper).
And a worthier recipient I’ve yet to hear.
What about a rare and leather-bound set of ‘Adolf Hitler’s Friendly Guide to Race Slavery’, and its equally sought-after companion volume, ‘How to Make Friends of Your Enemies by Exterminating Them’?
(Now that was vicious.)
You’ve got one strike, there Rob – that’s very uncivil. I’m sure Harry would best preserve his dignity by not responding. Next time the comment goes. You’re undercutting your own argument that Harry’s comment at Troppo was offensive by making offensive comments yourself. Nor is it all relevant to the thread.
Fair enough, Mark, it’s your blog. Admit you laughed a bit, though (just a bit).
You forget that I’m a stern and humourless leftist, surely, Rob?
Rob, in my opinion, you may also like to consider apologising to Harry – no matter what you think of his past comments.
I’m going to bed shortly and I won’t be online much tomorrow as I have a number of appointments during the day, so just a reminder to everyone – keep the discussion civilised, please.
You really thought this thread was pushin’ it.
What a bunch of pussies.
*strikes ‘cat answering telephone pose’, and then wanders off*
100th post AND first deleted. I’ll think I’ll aim for Notorious.
Mark, I reckon that since the thread has pretty much moved on from our more serious back and forth into chitchat you could reprint my original comment without harm.
Or Rob, I can email it to you privately, since you seem so keen on it. You will be dissapointed as it was nothing but a smartarse one liner.
Actually I wouldn’t mind the collected one-liners of EP. Some of them are pretty good I think.
But I didn’t keep the email, Harry! But you’re welcome to post it now as I think that the contrast might be instructive.
On the collected one-liners of EP, somewhere or other (maybe at Georg’s place) I read about a site that will turn your blog into a book – an odd idea!
Now that every-one is just about done, here I am.
I was out and about twice today and counted 17 separate face-to-face interactions with human beings, though only involving 13 different people. I heard some American research that claimed we need 7 interactions with different people each day or we start to feel isolated. I wonder how many blog interactions are equivalent to one real live one.
I often have significantly fewer than 7 interactions and it’s hard to say how much this leads to commenting on blogs. Not much I’d say. I’m not a highly interactive commenter, possibly because I’m not much good at one-liners.
FWIW my own commenting rules are as follows:
1. Never comment unless you have read all the comments so far on the thread.
2. Only comment when you think you have something new to contribute.
3. Don’t feel you have to comment on everything you consider foolish , incorrect, untrue, or wrong-headed. It’s not worth it and some-one else will often attend to it better than you could.
4. Only comment when you think you will have time to come back and check any response. (This is not always possible for me.)
5. Try not to comment when you are tired, brain-dead and falling off the chair.
On the weekend I read that Foucault argues that the need to share has become a cornerstone of Western discourse. “The confession became one of the west’s most highly valued techniques for producing truth,” he writes. “And we have become a singularly confessing society.” That was in 1976… The article was talking about talking about sex, but I wonder if there is this confessional/sharing aspect to commenting and how strong it is.
Finally, Mark, the local rugby league ie the Queensland Cup is probably still the most attractive rugby league of any decent quality you would see anywhere. I suspect, though, that the mighty Diehards have died and gone to heaven, their catchment area having been taken over by people like you!
(The last para was all I really wanted to say, but I had to earn the right to say it!)
Damn, the italics were supposed to end afer 1976…
The post Naomi’s talking about is here. There’s also a post at Citystate.
Fixed, Brian. Same problem as last time. You had an open tag after the close tag.
Good rules though!
And there’d be a case for using Foucault’s analysis as a metaphor or an explanation of the blogosphere (and even more so of the livejournal phenomenon).
And – yes – the Valleys Diehards are dead and buried, but not forgotten!
What I like about comment threads is the generally expectations that you mean what you say and are prepared to stand by it, and that you are prepared to listen. I also very much like the jokes.
and spelling. Often very good spelling in comments
Zoe, I like jokes about normblog. And the spelling in normblog comments…
And you walked right into the list one, too.
Yeah, I know – plus Tim Blair caught me out on an April Fool’s Day story [hangs head in shame]…
Going off now to console myself with a book, some pasta and a glass of red…
50 comments – must mention Potter…
definitely dinner time now!
Are you picking on Mark, dear Zoe?
Apologies for coming in so late. I could have sworn that I had track backed to this post Mark but it looks like I stuffed up, In my tiredness I didn’t even link to Sophies editorial so folks not in on this thread will probably be scratching their head, I’ll have to fix it up. I wanted to leave a longer comment and it spilled over into a rant which I ended up posting on my own blog. Anyway it’s already been mentioned by Kim so I’m grateful. Sleep tight bedbugs.
Mark, I finally worked out what I did. I put the / after the i instead of before it.
Had me rattled there for a bit.
The problem for me is that the Live Comment Preview doesn’t show exactly what will appear.
On the subject of the underlying software, Mark (which Brian wasn’t), could you get someone to recut the code ever so slightly so that we don’t all belong to the same family in the comments threads:
Rafe Says
Nabakov Says
Mark Says
Mindy Says
etc. Says
I don’t know any of these people except myself but it seems they’re all my brothers and sisters.
All you need is that syntactically essential lower-case ’s’ and we can become proper poeple again.
OT.
Lol, it’s part of the communitarian spirit here. Kind of like Mormons all taking the name “Elder”…
I’ll change it if Mark gives the nod.
Gracefully said. brother.
Gracefully said, brother.
(Spot the difference. No excuses with the preview pane. Oh the joys of being a grammar Nazi.)
Hadn’t noticed myself, Rob, but I agree “Simon says” is much better! Over to you, Robert!
Done.
Too bad if everyone else preferred it the other way. Should have got in first, you losers.
The biggest anticlimax of… well a short while.
The deleted comment read:
“Haven’t read the article yet, but anybody got a cake?”
Tadaa!
Mary’s opening comment goes for me as well. I am violating Brian’s Rule #2 perhaps, but Mark is in effect conducting a survey, so he might want to know not just the range of attitudes, but also their frequency.
While on the subject of Brian’s rules, I also concur strongly with #1. But I’m also pretty busy and don’t want to read through too much facetious general chit-chat, especially if the participants are an ‘in’ crowd, focused mainly on themselves.
Comments threads give me intellectual stimulus from vigorous debate among thoughtful people (which I don’t get at work), and delight in the occasional well-crafted gem of a comment. For me, it’s not a substitute for the pub. I don’t even go to the pub. (And I wonder if Rob’s pub is real or ideal.) That’s what I thought chat rooms were for. TA has a facetious chit-chat quotient of about 25%, JQ about 10%, so they suit me pretty well.