Online Opinion, which has been running a series of articles on blogging and new media, has published my piece – Political Blogs versus Big Media? It’s the wrong question to ask. I’d be very interested in feedback. I’ve also posted the article here at LP so that it becomes part of the archive of this site.
My argument, in short, is that to counterpose blogging to big media and ask, as journos often do, “why don’t Ozbloggers break stories and influence the political process?” is to misunderstand the role blogs can actually play – I argue that there are aspects of the form itself (primarily interactivity) that make blogging significant:
As blogger Ken Parish put it, we become monitorial citizens, and, I’d add, better citizens. I hope, just as I’ve argued that blogging reflects broader social patterns, that this political interactivity is a sign of the times. It’s certainly a sign of hope, and as the song goes, maybe “from little things, big things grow”.
Juxtaposed with my piece at Online Opinion is a piece by Daniel Donahoo. Daniel is an Ozprospect Fellow. I don’t know his work, but he has a fairly negative perspective on blogs. He claims that blogs are not influential because influential people don’t blog. This surely is unfair to the Christopher Sheils, John Quiggins, Andrew Bartletts and indeed Tim Blairs of the sphere, to name only a few. The rest of us, he suggests, are just sad.
Hmmm.
I’d make a couple of points in reply. The first is that his conception of influence is a very top-down one. What he ignores is the point that I’m making about the empowerment of citizens that’s possible through blogging.
His second point is a version of the old canard about interactivity over the internet being a symptom of a decline in “real” as opposed to “virtual” community. The latter is seen as somehow inferior, and a sad sign of the times:
That we can no longer share our thoughts over a coffee or a beer, but must go home and type them on the computer is another demonstration of people losing their physical connection with each other.
Bloggers know each other by pseudonyms and URLs. They are connected by computer terminals and telephone lines. A blogger can log off and disappear at any time, never to be seen again. There isn’t much serious commitment to the bevy of relationships formed online.
The greatest influence that blogging is having, is on the nature of our human relationships.
Again, I thoroughly disagree. I certainly share thoughts with people over a coffee and a beer – and sometimes with fellow bloggers – Michael Carden and I had a couple of beers at UQ yesterday and a good chat about theology and politics. There’s a kind of implication in the piece that bloggers are sad nerds with decayed social skills. But the broader point is also wrong. There’s been a flurry of research from Sociologists and Psychologists over the last decade on internet relations between people – almost all of which suggests that its results are positive and have a flow through effect on offline sociality. And the suggestion that to blog about politics displays a lack of political commitment is wrong as well. Surely throwing ideas out and discussing them with an audience is a positive thing. How many other fora where this can be done (ie vibrant branch meetings of political parties or public meetings) exist? And the potential of the internet for political mobilisation was stunningly demonstrated in the US last year on both left and right.
So I don’t see any need to modify the points I made in response to Donahoo’s arguments.
I’m certainly not a sad nerd. I’m really cool.
As we all know, Zoe!
The beauty of blogging is that I don’t have to be in Brisvegas or Canberra to have a discussion with people about the topic of the day. I can interact with a range of people that I normally would never have ‘met’ in the normal course of events. If this makes me a sad nerd so be it.
Also why does blogging necessarily have to be about breaking news? As far as I am aware it was never meant to be a news service. It’s quite educational at times, always entertaining and fun. Who cares if we don’t break news stories. It is strange however, being a daily reader of the SMH online, how often things discussed on Troppo and other sites crop up in the next days news items.
Which is a point I made in the article, Mindy.
Dear Mark -
It is certainly somewhat dangerous I think to write a piece that questions the relevance of blogs and then venture into blogging territory to try and defend yourself…hence possibly blowing your own argument out of the water.
I appreciate all bloggers will read this and chuckle at the paradox.
As far as my background on writing on bloggin is concerned – well I’ve published on the Net since 1995…I’d regard my personal websites back then as a form of blog, a simple form of the more capable online diaries we see today. I spent a lot of time writing hypertextual works, researching the value of e-books and generally praising the internet.
I don’t believe my piece is an all out assalut – and while the title of the piece (which was not mine) does perhaps provoke setreotyped geek images of bloggers – I don’t believe that reflects the intention of the piece.
I am directly challenging the influence that bloggers are now claiming they have. Yes, blogging is influencing mainstream media and has some prominence – but Tim Dunplop’s public intellectual claim is somewhat far fetched. I think bloggers need to be categorised – they type of bloggers you are writing about who cover elections and influence the political domain are a very specific and small group compared to the masses of bloggers just typing away hoping someone will notice.
Is blogging valuable? Yes.
Is blogging a valuable tool in bottom up democracy and community building? No. The television first contributed to the siloing of families into small households, the internet is taking that to the next step – where families are now siloed into seperate rooms…isolated in front of a computer screen.
I think anyone interested in bottom up community action should look at the value of real time, face-to-face human interaction. Technology is useful, but I shudder at those who claim it as some sort of revolution – using language akin to fundamental religious types.
Though – I know convincing bloggers of that will be a challenge, and yes there is room for both. But, the internet is just another tool – and not a very efficient one at that.
I know many bloggers – you are sad, or geeky, but changing the political landscape substantially requires much more that writing a public diary…blogging is one part of the answer. It isn’t the solution.
Daniel Donahoo
whoops – I meant in that last paragraph:
‘you are not sad, or geeky’ – hell, that was a slip…*preparing for onslaught*
Daniel, thanks for your response.
I take your point about sub-editing though I still think the implication was there.
I didn’t characterise your piece as an all out assault but as “fairly negative”.
I think you are also conflating the live journal format (which is valuable in its own way) and personal blogs with political blogs. It’s a big stretch to call Tim Dunlop’s site “an online diary”. The form has evolved and moved on.
As to Tim’s point about public intellectuals, I’d suggest you read what I wrote about the difference in accountability between blog articles and articles in the op/ed pages or magazines.
Yes, face-to-face interaction is necessary for political and community work, but my point is that if blogging raises interest and commitment, then that will in some instances follow. Even if it doesn’t, I still believe an informed and engaged citizenry is a plus for the political process.
You’d also note in my article that I’m also sceptical of hyperbolic claims about the potential of the net. The contribution I argue blogging can make is quite modest.
And I don’t think that blogging – which is interactive – is the same as someone sitting in a siloed room passively surfing websites. I’d like to see you refer to the academic literature about net use and sociality rather than making unsupported generalisations.
Daniel, I’d also note that my motivation for replying to you here was that the Online Forum rules prevent anyone from posting 2 comments on any articles in a 24 hour period. Thus if we wanted to engage with each other interactively there, we couldn’t. But we can on a blog.
Having said that, I’m meeting a friend for coffee to exchange thoughts and ideas at 3pm – which should make you happy.
But I can always drop in here later and respond.
See the point?
Zoe is cool. Normblog isn’t.
I think the point Mark’s making proves itself. If Daniel wrote an op/ed article for the SMH or whatever, could he engage in the sort of discussion that he can with others interested in his topic and who can articulately challenge his position?
No.
And if he received a private email as a result of an op/ed article, then the rest of us couldn’t follow the process of interaction and the development of the positions – through conversation.
I suspect the Online Forum rules are there to prevent abuse – but it shows a lack of trust in the readership that isn’t there in blogging. The conventions of debate and civility and sociality (much discussed) on blogs actually reflect a high degree of maturity and an emergent social consensus on rules for argument among bloggers.
I am a sad nerd, uts true, but that condition long predated blogspot.
The problem I have with this article is one I have often, I don’t know who it is trying to refute. Who says blogging is the be all and end all of ground up democracy? Who is trying to change society without ever meeting a real person? If such people exist, blogging is the least of their problems. I can think of a couple of blog discussions off the top of my head discussing the very same issue of influence, nuanced and reflective discussions.
I don’t recognise the bloggers Donahoo is talking about so my response is a big fat shrug, and I expect many of the regular LPs will feel the same way. In my experience, there isn’t much substance to the bevy of most of our “real life” relationships either and people come in and out of offline political communities too. *My* communities have been built up through blogging (politically through reading and commenting, and musically through my own) so … I’ll stay right where I am, thanks.
I’ve never seen my blog about ‘changing the political landscape’. Maybe Andrew feels differently because he’s more of an activist than me. Why does everything have to be about effecting social change or socially relevant? I see blogging as just another part of my intellectual life. Less passive than just sitting down and reading. I could care less if none of my ideas are ever implemented. I just enjoy the cut and thrust of occasional debate and polemic. I write as much for myself as for anyone else. Writing helps you clarify your thoughts. Of course placing it in the public sphere serves an additional function as a catalyst to further thought.
Mark –
You know maybe the implication was there. I’ve undergone a pretty radical shift in my ideas about the online world.
The social isolation debate is not as unwarranted as most people who write about it online admit (and fair enough, they have a vested interest in the medium).
Recent data from the Standford Centre for the Quantative Study of Society suggests in quite a reasonable way that the Internet is impacting on our lives. As it would. They identify a reduction in a range of activities from TV time to socilising.
A good article on it can be found at http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/february23/internet-022305.html
I agree about the power of connected global communties – it is great. But, what is the point when we live in a society where we don’t even know our neighbours, where people live in gated communtities and the media promote a fear agenda that makes internet-based relationships seem a whole lot more appealing than the risk required for committing to a relationship with someone in your own community – who you will see at the shops everyday.
I have written more about this idea in a recent piece for Australian Prospect.
It is heartening that we agree about the modest impact of blogs and I take your point about Tim Dunlop’s site…
Still – even without academic evidence I struggle to see an equal value between the interactive online community relationships and interactive offline community relationships. The internet lends itself to far more deception, mistrust and lacks the need for a commitment to relationship than the world that came before it. I am not saying this doesn’t exist everywhere – but there are intangibel things like emotions, human touch and tone of voice that online interaction deals with in a clumsy way.
You are right, I am ‘fairly negative’ about blogs, webcams, wikis and the whole world of dot-com relationships…I just think we are a long way from getting relationships right while we are offline…and could spend a bit more time trying to work on those.
Don’t worry, Amanda, as those of us with our eye on the cutting edge of popular culture know, nerdy is the new cool.
Nabs I’m sure will make a great point about bars/salons, but I’ll leave it to him.
But why do so many of us come back so often – because we enjoy hanging with each other, the humour, the shared references, the stimulating interchange. Smells like community spirit to me!
Importantly – the blogging format allows me to assume different personalities and agree with myself online.
Good point Hermes.
That must be a great comfort, Hermes.
I wanted also to agree with Amanda’s point – it seems to me also as if Donahoo is targetting a strawblogger.
Hmm, one small point. A slightly more sophisticated take on ‘community’ would realise that blogging helps those people who are friends (in a certain kind of way) who simply cannot meet up for beers and the like. I am thinking of the postgrads from other countires, states or unis who I would never engage with except for random inter-state conferences or whatever. I value their friendship or at least the possibility to engage with what they write. Rather than looking at blogging as failing to match previous modes of sociality (such as the classic masculine practices stemming from sociality mediated by alcohol, footy or cars;), perhaps it is necessary to understand what blogging actually enables.
Of course, then there are all the personal joys of blogging that Jason mentioned.
…and you can’t always know where your ideas will be disseminated – you might find for example that librarians working in Australian parliaments are scanning the best blogs and forwarding on pieces to the members and their research staff …. (this used to be called a “current awareness service” when it just involved newspapers and magazines). Daniel might be pleasantly surprised if he knew who was reading his work.
I think moving from politician to a sad nerd is probably seen as a step upwards – goodness knows what heights of social acceptance I can achieve next. Actually, taking up Hermes’ fabulous idea, I can even become a whole lot of different sad nerds at once.
Blogs won’t hugely increase the political awareness of the ‘average person’ for quite some time, if ever, but it can (in conjunction with other things) significantly improve the engagement, understanding and effectiveness of those who are interested in politics or various political issues.
We have to always remember that the majority of people aren’t overly interested in politics, except as it relates to an issue which directly affects them, which is why the majority of the mainstream media’s ‘political’ coverage is focused on providing entertainment and scandal rather than genuine information and debate – which isn’t to say that blogs can’t be entertaining in their own way, but the ‘mass’ aspect of mass media generates its own drama in the same way as a footy game played before a full stadium with full-on media hype does. Blogging can’t compete with that and shouldn’t try.
All of which means Mark is right – Blogs versus Big Media is the wrong question.
I think one of the most important points was made in the comments on his article:
“The internet is a valuable tool. It is also an addictive one”
This is so true and a great danger. Judging by posts and comments around like-minded blogs, some bloggers/commenters appear never to sleep or have a social life. Which leads me to believe that many bloggers/commenters do have problems of one kind or another with social interaction skills. People who fall into this category are at least communicating.
The Internet can be a HUGE time-waster. How many of us have sat down to check our emails and suddenly found 5, 10 or even 15 hours have passed.
I am in two minds about blogging, however, at the moment I lean towards it being a means to vent or argue but with no real results. Most blogs are frequented by like-minded people and it becomes a bit of follow-the-leader.
If more politicians like Andrew Bartlett or their staff would blog then I could see blogs having at least a small impact as in the old days when politicians would attend local branches to find out ‘the word on the street’.
you might find for example that librarians working in Australian parliaments are scanning the best blogs and forwarding on pieces to the members and their research staff
They certainly are. I had an email from the WA Parliamentary Library before the WA campaign, letting me know that’s what they were doing and asking if I could recommend any worthwhile blogs.
I thought Daniel’s article quite interesting. Yet his nub comes down to a supposed group of opportunity costs, which are neither defined nor supported. Is it he lamenting a golden era, when the family sat smiling round the lounge room, gaily singing “It’s a Long Way To Tipperary”?
I’d also emphasise Andrew’s point, which is also the point that underlies Tim Dunlop’s article and is in line with Mark’s opinion, which is that one of the keys to blogging is the way it facilitates engagement. On the other hand, to suppose the idea of being able to directly measure the ratio between blogging and social change as a performance indicator is heroic, to put it nicely.
hey Ron, I have a social problem, it is called a dissertation. I am often up until 2 or 3am working and then sometimes I check out what has been happening on blogs as a way to slowly shut my down my thinking for sleep. Except now i have just woken up from a sleep, so it is going in reverse, haha…
And you can meet other lovers of Albonini and Pachelbel…
I wasn’t going to say this in the post for fear of skiting – but a lot of the hits this blog has got over the past few days have had to do with the coverage that people have read here about Cardinal Ratzinger and his new incarnation Pope Benedict XVI. When I go back to and click on the google searches I’ve found that LP is very high up – in other words, because there are a lot of readers of this blog anyway (yesterday was the biggest day ever with about 1400 distinct readers), when we talk about something topical, we’re near the top of google searches. And I humbly hesitate – but I’ll say it anyway – for a number of reasons (including Jesuit antecedents – but some of which I don’t want to spell out publicly) I think people reading this site on Pope Benedict XVI are in fact reading something by someone who’s spent a long time – a decade and a half at least – studying ecclestiastical matters and who has contacts in the clergy. So they’re being better informed, I’d argue, than reading the average article in the papers which picks up on the meme of the day from the media with no real background. And who knows what influence that has? More, I’d suspect than the op/ed article on average.
As cs would say, just sayin’…
I have to say as a veteren of a series of online communities – not just the blogosphere, but Internet Relay Chat and Newsgroup communities, and bulleton board communities before that – that my capacity for developing human relationships has in fact increased as a result of exposure to these electronic agoras, not been depleted.
In many cases, “virtual” communities forged online have spilled over into “real life” and great friendships and connections have been made directly as a result of having the opportunity to exchange ideas and discuss, persuade, reflect and reconsider in a forum without judgement based on age, gender, politics or lifestyle choice. Certainly this has been the case in my experience, and I would have to consider it one of the great learning experiences of my life.
Anyone who has met me will know I am hardly the kind of person to sit in the shadows and say nothing. I love to confess my geekdom, but my interest in sport, fashion and culture, my tendency to be friendly to everyone, and my rather too-active social life go against the grain of the typical geek. (This is the first Friday night I’ve been home at a decent hour in ages, and that’s only because I was taken out to a very long lunch today, finishing around 5:30pm, and Australia are playing the Kiwis in the league game on TV.)
Anyone who regards my life as “sad” is sadly mistaken. Such an ignorant generalisation would be akin to proclaiming the life of a rural resident with a wife and 2.4 kids as devoid of culture, interest or understanding, and thoroughly deplorable.
I think jj has it right – I’ve been thinking about Donahoo’s article and I think “ignorant generalisation” sums it up well.
I don’t know what you need to do to be an Ozprospect Fellow but doing some research perhaps isn’t part of it? From what I’ve read of jj’s blog, she’s actually researched virtual communication as part of her academic work. But Donahoo blithely ignores the academic literature.
For instance, and I guess he doesn’t know this, I have been an amputee for the last 18 years since I was 14 and have contacts in the disability community with far more severe disabilities than I have. The net has been a godsend for many people with disabilities – people with mobility impairments or even agaraphobia which makes it difficult for them to leave their houses, people who face prejudice because of their physical difference – for all these folks the net is a great equaliser – we’re all text! – and a real source of sociality and belonging.
I guess (having checked out the Ozprospect site) Mr Donahoo gets his stuff published in big media and he seems to have caught the typical viri of the op/ed columnist – lack of justification for his “opinion”, attacking straw people (as Amanda said), and failure to back up his opinion with research.
I hope he comes back to this thread, because I wouldn’t want to add “scared to engage” to the charge sheet.
Yes Kim, I hope he comes back here too so I can tell him that I have been able to pronounce Stanford correctly since I saw Legally Blonde. His ‘StanDford is not a typo – d is not near n on the qwerty board.
Many bloggers are isolated in various ways, and here is a newsflash for latte society like Daniel – ‘isolated’ does not mean ’stupid’.
I should say, in fairness to Daniel, his second comment above sat awaiting moderation while I was out so its appearance above was actually belated – probably giving people the impression that he hadn’t responded.
Daniel took the time to leave a lengthy refute at my blog about his Online piece. After calling ME ’sad’ and ‘looking for Google validation’ he then sniped at me for Googling HIM and for laughing at all the rich hippies who have recently moved to Castlemaine. can’t take a returned serve. poor sad boyman.
“Daniel took the time to leave a lengthy refute at my blog about his Online piece. After calling ME ‚Äôsad‚Äô and ‘looking for Google validation‚Äô ”
Daniel Dona-Who?
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
If you have a look at the comments at Daniel’s online forum piece it’s an instructive comparison with the typical standard of blog comments threads!
I think Daniel has a point, or a couple of points.
I’ve never changed my mind about anything as a result of participating in blog discussions. Sad to say, I daresay, but there it is. On any issue of significance we split off into right and left within about .00002 seconds and then settle in to slagging off at each other. It’s fun, but it’s meaningless.
On the other hand, I did change my views about the government’s refugee policy during a pleasant dinner in a Darwin harbourside cafe over a glass or three of verdelho. My interlocutor took issue, in the nicest possible way, with my use of the term ‘illegal immigrants’, and after a bit of civil discussion I found myself unreservedly conceding and going over to my interlocutor’s side of the net.
The fact that said interlocutor was a disturbingly attractive young woman who happened to be leaning forward at the time ought to have had no material impact on my views, but somehow it did.
Couldn’t have happened online – at last the bits of online that I frequent.
I come back to the key weakness about the guy’s main point, which is that he assumes an opportunity cost that he simply has not established and is highly contestable. To boot, his blogging perfomance measures are extremely crude, to say the least.
Otherwise, it is an interesting read. The opportunity cost question is an interesting one in principle, made deceptive by virtue of the very low transaction costs that characterise the blogging medium. How much blogging is eating into other media, leisure, work, and, yes, even feel-goody relationship time, is a puzzle most bloggers tangle with at some time or other, and their are real limits, as well as seemingly endless possibilities.
Yes, there is an interesting question there, Chris, which is obscured by Donahoo’s either the net or a vibrant social life (false) dichotomy.
“….by Donahoo‚Äôs either the net or a vibrant social life (false) dichotomy.”
Way, way too deep for me.
Donahoo argues that we’re either sad nerds who blog all the time or out there having fascinating convos with our rich social networks in funky coffee shops and changing the world by doing so. Or joining a political party. That usually makes a huge difference.
To add to Chris’ point, Daniel’s blog performance is also rather weak.
Funky lookin’ fella, though.
I mean to pick up on Chris’ point with more snark.
Got that. Didn’t understand a word of CS’s, though. Alright, Mark, I’m gone (until I come irritatingly back). Good luck. Pity it did turn into an echo chamber, pace the thread at Troppo.
Rob, did you read the rules for rhetoric in blog debates or do they come naturally?
You’ve studied Foucault – surely you can study Sheil?
Naturally. Ciao.
Cheers.
FTR, I have changed my mind or modified my view of a range of things based on blog posts and discussion so it does happen.
Blogs have been a great way to better understand contrary points of view to mine. Before starting blogging at Backpages last year I simply didn’t engage with conversations from the ‘other side’ – mostly because I didn’t physically hang-out with the ‘other side’ and talk politics with them.
Blogs have helped me better understand people in general, although many still completely mystify me eg Rob.
I can’t see a full on barney with someone like CurrencyLad occuring in the real world without bouncers, and thence irate residents, being involved at some point. Let alone a bunch of people silently watching the play.
That’s a bit of a kicker actually – how many social gatherings are there where everyone turns up to have a go at a few topics of the day? Or, more importantly, watch people have conversations?
At least on a blog I know that everyone is there for this sort of thing, whereas at a party or whatever you’d be a bore if you behaved as such.
Daniel may also be surprised to know that it’s a great educational tool as well. I have learnt a lot through putting up comments on different blogs and being corrected by Ken, Mark, CL, etc. Which is good. If you are going to put up an ill-informed opinion then you should expect to be put back in your box.
I have certainly learnt more about the left vs right debate, the Catholic Church, the Pentecostal Church thanks to Michael’s very informative guest post, and many other issues. Perhaps this is part of the hidden curriculum of blogs.
Just to buy into the melee, I wanted to voice my concern over the methods some people use in their blog to take issue with someone.
Brownie, who has posted above, has taken on Daniel Donahoo on her blog by finding pictures of him and his wife (me) and 3 year old and 18 month old (who were much younger in the photo) to use as hate pics.
I’ve made the point to Brownie and I’ll make the point here too: blogging, for some people, represents the opportunity to make nasty comments about the family lives of writers whose opinions you do not agree with, without having to take responsibility for those words or actions. It is also reprehensible for Brownie to use the photos to encourage others to attack me and my kids.
Interestingly, on this blog, people use their intellect to dissect, disagree with and discuss Daniel’s argument, while she has chosen to publicly deride the writer AND implicate his wife and kids to vent her spleen.
It is also interesting that of all the URLs one could use to gain more insight into an author, she (and others) has chosen to link to a defunct website which has not been in use for around five years. Selective.
tania, perhaps “hate” pictures is a bit strong. I do think Brownie was very upset by the article, and perhaps she has crossed some lines. In any case, she’s responsible for her actions and I don’t want to try and justify them for her.
At this site, there is a comments policy and I’m active in ensuring that things that people find personally offensive are sanctioned.
the photo of the children has been deleted.
now get The Age to delete it from their web presence.
I came back here looking for where I might have said ‘rich hippies’ after Mrs Donahoo flamed me. as I replied to her, it is not a vicious slur.
her husband used opinion.online to call my social activity ’sad’, in a place where I regularly comment, Opinion Online, and where EVERYone else there might also ‘get a life’. I have given Australia 3 taxpayers now aged 32, 35 and 36 – I can drink all day if I want to.
Brownie,
I appreciate your removing the photo from your blog.
I’m sorry that my attempts to defend myself from nasty comments in your blog forum have given you reason to delete my postings, and restrict that topic to Members Only. They certainly weren’t offensive comments.
Obviously, you are well within your rights to do this, but you must then accept that if you give people you are talking about no option to respond, you negate that greatly revered ‘democratising’ effect of blogging.
My problem was not with any public critique of Daniel’s ideas; they are the public’s to do with what it will. I objected to you using our family photo when you already had two author photos of Daniel up on your site.
Again, please let me add, that someone’s definition of ’sad’ should not cause you to question something you love doing.
Tania, I think it was a poorly chosen expression by Daniel in his OO piece. I’d still argue that he needs to distinguish more between different types of blogs but I’ve had my say rather comprehensively in this thread above so I won’t go over it.
Popperian blogs certainly aren’t sad.
Thanks, Kim – I’ve been falling down on the job – fairly busy with work stuff at the moment!
Dear Mark – I think the title was a poor one – but I thinkmy expression was quite tight. At no point did I call bloggers ’sad’. You’d know better than most that writer’s don’t write the titles for their pieces – well, at least I don’t.
“Dear ‘world of blogs‚Äô —
Influential or not, I appear to have made my mark on a small part of the blogosphere.
And amid the comments boxes and feedback loops I feel I have been taken somewhat out of context by the title that was given this piece…
I did not write the title to this piece, it was given by (I assume) the editor of sub editor who posted it. Nowhere else in the body of the text do I call bloggers sad. I actually don’t think they are.
What do I say?
I say that blogs, like other non-online aspects of our lives, are a call to be recognised. Like suicide, or joining a rock band, or auditioning for a reality TV show…this piece is more about the problems with the off-line world than the online world. I don‚Äôt think it is bad searching for your voice and wanting to be recognised. Hell, it is one of the reasons I write and try to get it published publicly.
I say that online relationships lack something real offline human relationships have. And, I think they do: touch, tone of voice, something intangible…just ask bloggers and chatters who have fallen in love and travelled the world to be together — they do it because we ultimately all want physical relationships not virtual ones.
I say blogging isn’t as influential as Tim Dunlop suggests.
To those who ask ‘who says blogs are influential‚Äô — well the answer is Tim Dunlop, and a few others. It is a fair opinion, one I disagree with — but may be proved wrong. I agree with their idea that blogs help to make people more democratically engaged.
Thanks to a title I believe I have been taken out of context, but hey, that is how it goes. Re-read the piece. I don’t think I’m as harsh as I’ve been portrayed as being.
Though — I like gilly-san‚Äôs thoughts…I think they portray what I feel uneasy about in the blogging world.”
Daniel, yes, I acknowledged your point about the sub-editor’s title.
Here’s my response to your comment crossposted at OO:
I just wanted to add a personal perspective to a couple of Mark’s points.
I’ve only lived in Brisbane (again) for a relatively short time and forming relationships online has been very useful.
I also have a disability (single leg amputation) which normally doesn’t restrict me much offline but as some readers of LP know, I have suffered from a recurrence of the cancer which caused the amputation in the first place and the state of my health at the moment doesn’t allow for much socialising. So virtual community is very meaningful for me at this time, plus the invaluable support I’ve received.
On blog friendships going offline, I met Mark online initially and now we’re friends and catch up to get boozy every now and then. I doubt I’d ever have encountered him had it not been for the net, and I’d say the same about other ppl I’ve initially met online.
Thanks, Kim, it’s also been a pleasure to get to know you!
Cheers Mark – my attempt to engage as you have asked:
Ok Mark —
We could continue to counter examples if we wished. For all your positive examples of people‚Äôs experience of blogging, I could produce negative examples of people‚Äôs experience of blogging. You’d agree it isn’t all one way.
I agree with you that the online communication experience has significant benefits to a whole bunch of isolated people in society. I agree that it brings people together and lets them share ideas and discover new ones. Are blogs and other forms of online communication dynamic and interesting? Yes.
Still, I will I continue to argue thought that blogging, or any screen based activity has changed the world of human relationships for the worse.
Why?
Because it doesn‚Äôt ask us to go down to that pub you mentioned and strike up a conversation, try and find a point of common interest – because we just don’t have to put in the effort. Home entertainment means we spend less time in more communal environments. Blogging is a step back to engagement after television, video and surfing the net — and everyone is excited about it. But, it still seems to me to be regressive because it denies key aspects of being human.
This line of argument doesn’t fit well into the academic framework you are probably used to. Just like governments or other institutions the academy has its own set method of dialogue Рone I am not altogether comfortable with or believe is accessible to a majority of the community.
But, what I am arguing about is the intangible nature of holding someones hand or touching their elbow. The power of non-verbal communication that can let you know the subtle nature of what someone is trying to say. Blogging doesn’t do that. Yes, it engages in the intellectual, but it can not engage in other ways. And most of us are more interested in the emotional, the spiritual and the sublime.
Perhaps we just have to agree to disagree. But really, my broader agenda is about strengthening offline communities, not dismantling online ones.
We may indeed, Daniel.
I’m not sure what you mean by the academic conventions I’m used to.
I’m also interested in building offline community – I just don’t think that it’s incompatible with online sociality.
As intimated in my comments, I’m inclined to support Mark quite strongly on this. We are all guessing, and it would be nice to have some substantive research, but my hypothesis is that the major opportunity costs of blogging have fallen on television and videos, and a decent share on print media. Perhaps the costs have touched on real life relations at the margins, but let’s face it, some relations don’t bring many benefits at the margins, to talk in these crude terms. The important complicating factor in hypothesising is figuring the dramatically lower comparative transaction costs of maintaining relations outside home, compared with blogging. So small are the latter compared to the former, the two activities may, perhaps, be unlikely to impinge on each other much at all, forming a compatible continuum. My experience is that you can get it all tending toward nice fits.
I second cs’s comments. I think there is some study floating around somewhere that some blogger cited a while ago showing precisely that internet activity has been at the expense of TV. I can cite my own experience on this. I decided to get rid of my TV more than a year ago now because I was using it less and less as the internet boomed. by contrast, my reading (of books) and social life has not suffered at all.
Shorter cs: Blogging is cheap and fun. And if yer not already a loser, blogging won’t make it any more so likely.
Fouler Nabakov: Plus going online is the only global and cheap, text-based, real time, interactive and uncensored medium where you can debate the implications of GM crops, hip people to obscure albums or call the Pope a reactionary poopyhead while getting a blowjob at the same tome tin tine time time time! (sorry, was a bit distracted there).
I strongly suspect you’re right, Jason – Lateline looked boring tonight so I came back to the blog! Now I’m off to read a book.
One definition of the ’sphere is that it is just a big book club, everyone drawing on their reading investments (or in Nabs case, actively withdrawing). Must admit, I’ve been resentfully provoked into reading a fair number through blogging (although never Windschuttle, of course).
(”or in Nabs case, actively withdrawing)”
Hey! Me no catholic!
Ahem, how’s your anatomy Nabs?
I’m with Daniel Donahoo on this, at least in sentiment.
But as Daniel is from Castlemaine, one of the few truly human, if slightly over-priced, of Australia’s townships, he does however over-estimate the true supply of sociability available to your average berk living in your average suburb.
That’s the downfall in his argument.
(For banana benders et al, Castlemaine is becoming a very cold Byron.)
.. ok so now I read the whole bloody thread and see that the Castlemaine thing has been done – courtesy of the completely not sad Brownie.
Want to agree with Danny boy unreservedly now. Just out of spite. Bloggers are a touchy bunch, it seems. That’s sad.
To WBB (via WBY):
You say, as I have often given tongue
In praise of what another’s said or sung,
‘Twere politic to do the like by these’
But was there ever dog that praised fleas?
To all of youse (via John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester)
“Oh, but the world will take offense hereby!
Why then the world shall suffer for’t, not I.”
Thanks to Daniel for the expansion and clarification but still not a scrap of evidence and all my intiial thoughts about it remain. I didn’t ask about who was saying blogging is influential, I asked about who was saying blogging is the only way to be engaged, a charge in the original article — a question I still have, which Donahoo hasn’t answered.
I still touch alot of elbows, if you must know. There has got to be a country song in that line.
Evidence, por favor, if you are going to make these doomsday predictions.
The other great thing about blogging which Nabs touched on was that you can say your 2c worth without being talked over, interrupted etc unlike in real conversations, and if someone is going on too long, you can just skip to the end of their comment and read on. Bit hard to do in a conversation.
Does anyone know what Donahoo’s background is?
“Does anyone know what Donahoo‚Äôs background is?”
Have a read of his articles, Mark. Although he claims not to be sneering at people with different preferences, his entire corpus of work can be best categorised as ‘essentialist-reactionary’ – it’s all about bemoaning the alleged lack of ‘physical contact’, how people aren’t full human beings until they have chlidren, and how we don’t live in a real community unless we have neighbours peering over our fences watching us pick our noses.
Makes sense! Have you got an up to date link to his publications, Jason?
if you look at his Online Opinion piece that links to his bio which links to publications before that piece in Online Opinion.
Thanks, Jason – yes, I see your point.
In the meantime, if anyone needs a more encouraging spin on the enterprise, (and less oz focused) there is a good series of interviews here
“I’m calling it “a bloggers blogger” and I’m going to get interviews from all my favourite bloggers. The goal? For all of us to REframe blogging according to our own (and not Big Media’s) terms”
I don’t think the link came through, boynton.
whoops – sorry about that…
This should be ok
Thx, boynton, that works fine.
OK, the guy’s some kinda new age dude. Fair enough. But that does not excuse the scholarship. According to this logic, if I was a teacher (which I am), I could bemoan blogging for denying people opportunities to study, or if I was an active citizen (which I am), I could bemoan blogging for denying people opportunities to protest and survive, or if I was an Elvis addict (which I am), I could bemoan blogging for denying people opportunities to get in touch with the King.
But if I was to do any of this, I might also be justly accused of abusing an opportunity to make a disciplined comment in favour of advertising in my own rank self interest.
Look, I don’t expect people to stand on the blogging rafters over this point and applaud like mad things. But I also think it finishes DD’s case, QED, and I’m sick of typing it, and this is the last time, I swear.
CS: “OK, the guy‚Äôs some kinda new age dude. Fair enough. But that does not excuse the scholarship”
I certainly hope this isn’t in reference to my interviews, which are motivated by the many, many, many negative characterisations of bloggers in the international mainstream media. I should know, as a freelance writer and journalist who has worked for national and independent media – my perspective on media is informed by professional experience and knowledge of the industry. My perspective as a blogger is informed by substantial research about blogging and the opportunity to have interviewed (for online media) Rebecca Blood and other blogging *authorities*. My opinions on these and other subjects are guided by insight, not new age twaddle. For the record:
I’m also not “a dude.”
Secondly, I despise sham “new age” anything – both intellectually and aesthetically (in fact, I’ve been highly critical about spiritual materialism in all forms). If by new age you are mistakenly referring to the reference to “dharma” on my sidebar it refers to my Buddhist practice – Buddhism is not new age. It’s a legitimate religion for billions of people. Additionally, if you read any of my writings on buddhism you’ll see they are prefaced my secular caveats (i.e., I do not believe in reincarnation, etc) – a critical engagement which is antithetical to new age anything. Or is the photo of my hand with driftwood? Does my environmentalism signify new age? As a member of several major environmental organizations I resent the characterisation of nature or the use of nature in one’s aesthetic as being some how “new age”. But of course, the right (and perhaps your perspective is informed by right wing outlook?) derides anything remotely connected with nature and non-western thinking. Nature is something to develop, a resource (not an object of contemplation or something to protect); non-western values are something to fear and stamp out (not something to celebrate or learn from). I bring these things up because I have heard that old “new age” chesnut wheeled out by Republicans as a means of discrediting anything that derives from a non-conservative, Christian or capitalist origin.
If you took more than five seconds to either read my “About page” (to find out, for example that I’m a professional writer and journalist) or actually read the interviews you’d see that you’ve made a highly superficial and incorrect assumption both about my character. Additionally, my middle name is “Chandra”. Again, ancient in origin (and not at all new age). But perhaps “new age” refers to anything non-western?
Thirdly, my interviews are not “scholarship”. My interview series is designed to speak to the misrepresentation of bloggers by the media. Thus far, I’ve spoken to respected academics and researchers, a former television producer who blogs about getting older, a technology writer and designer, a feminist poet, a transgender technologist from the UK, a photographer living in Japan, and a few others. I’ve asked all of these bloggers to talk about how they came to blog, what blogs they enjoy and etc. There is nothing even vaguely “new age” or “scholarly” about any of it.
Chill, Mel. cs would be the last person I would presume to be able to speak for but …. he was talking about Daniel Donahoo not you.
Also … Elvis, addict? That’s new. I know Robert Johnson addict. Keef addict. I am planning a trip to TN and MS, prob skip Graceland in favour of a some days in Clarksdale, out by the crossroads.
Thank you Amada. I found this link in my stats this morning and really didn’t know what to make of that last comment given that it followed the link to my series. I assumed, as many would, that CS’s response was to me and the link (not to the material prior). Also, I have had republican trolls slag me in their blogs as a hippie, etc (yes, I know, hardly offensive but the logic is that I’m doing something earthy and that earthy is something they, the right, don’t appear to like very much).
CS: Forgive me for my misdirected reaction. I genuinely thought you were referring to me (given the relationship of your comment following the link)and the context I describe above.
No worries. It was a very entertaining rant!
No worries Mel. I was just picking up on Jason’s confirmation of DD’s interests,
Amanda, I once counted up my Elvis cds and tried to work out how many they would amount to in LPs, and its around 60. Soemtimes I go for a couple of weeks listening to nothing but the big boy.
If I was you, I’d give up Gracelands for Clarksdale too, although Gracelands is interesting in its own weird way. The single biggest disappointment when I was in TN is the Grand Old Oprey – don’t bother, even for history’s sake: an abstentenious theme park full of good old boys playing with their balls, is my short-hand. When you going, about?
I will bother with the Opry, sad schlocky country kitsch is a compulsion with me. But no way known will stay at any of the hotels in Opryland. No, downtown for me, close to the coffee houses and honky tonks. Hopefully end of Jan/Feb next year. Winter is not the greatest time (Dollyland is closed until March! I was crushed when I read that) but its the only time I can fit it in. Also NYC, Nashville(natch), Memphis, Chicago in about 3 or so weeks. Bit of a toodle down HWY 61 and Nashville to Chicago on the City of New Orleans. I’d really like to visit G-lands but I have a feeling it would be an all day affair and I have limited time. We’ll see.
Opry is much worse than you think Amanda. Not sad, not schlocky (for which I’m a sucker as much as anyone) – just shithouse. No smoking, no drinking, no volume, no talent – after an hour, no Chris and party. If it was the original Opry, I could put up with this for the history, but it’s now just another shit theme park. Don’t come back and tell me no-one warned you.
Graceleands is a half day at most – you get shuffled through in a pretty quick production line. In one day, in sequence, we did Civil Rights Museum (in Memphis – don’t miss – best museum ever), Sun Studio (great), Gracelands (OK) and over to Nashville in the evening for the Opry (sick white joke). The day was one of my best ever, and started brilliantly, but took a distinct step down with every stop.
Memphis is far superior to Nashville, incidentally, if you have some time discretions. Nashville reminds me of a cross between Wagga Wagga and LA, but Memphis is a great town, with music bursting at every seam.
But hell, it’s gonna be cold!
I went about life happily through two Moscow winters so I figure I can handle Tennessee. I promise not to complain when I find opry to be shithouse, for the show I think it really depends on who is there on your particular night. It could be just little jimmie dickens and the dodgy regulars who have scammed a gig for the last 40 years or … it could be emmylou harris. I figure 5 +/- days for both Nashville/Memphis/Clarksdale. I have already pored over the Civil Rights, Sun and Stax museums websites, they are all must sees. I’m trying to keep things loose until closer to the time so if there is a killer gig somewhere I can work in around it.
Mind you, this plan is based on the assumption I can avoid spending all my money of grog and music in the next few months. Count upon it not.
I don’t think Emmylou has played the Opry, like, forever, but i could be wrong. Remember, when I say no smoking, no drinking etc that the music-listening Opry theatre itself is smack in the middle of a big theme park wherere all these evils are banned, and therefore there is no ducking out for a drink or a fag (although the worst was the pathetic volume levels, for all acts – it’s set for the radio show, which goes out live). You will have entered some sort of wierd religious territory, and it’s a big puke, particualry if you have worked your way up from the Delta and through the Civil Rights museum and Elvis, to discover that everything in the the whole great musical tradiiton has been throrughly filletted out by the time you get to the Opry. Think Hillsong, minus volume and enthusiasm. We only stayed for about an hour cos we couldn’t believe how bad it was, and expected it to get better with every act, alas, no.
Emmy and Buddy Miller played a few nights at the Opry in January this year.
Consider me warned! I’m not naive about the levels to which Nashvegas can sink, believe me. I am not wedded to the idea of seeing an Opry show, it depends who is on. Ray Price, Hal Ketchum, Del McCoury Band are there this week, that would be OK.
I wonder what Daniel Donahoo thinks of the Grand Ole Opry. He seems to be wearing some kind of militia outfit in his Online Opinion photo so he may have something to add.
Definitely to be condemned Amanda, on the obvious basis that all people who go to the Opry reduce the number of people touching other people’s elbows somewhere else.
So, yeah, I think we need to organise offline the Daniel Donahoo Blog Love-in and give each other a good hug (elbows touching of course).
Just trying to rerail my derail but, yes, count me for group elbow petting and community building, I’ll bring the butchers paper.
Cool – we can all do those things like “which animal are you?” (should be easy given the number of feline and ape gravatars) and “which food are you”? Now, when I’ve been to training sessions with butchers paper, I know I’ve found real community at last! Aahhh…
Hey Amanda, Gracelands and the Civil Rights Museum were both closed on Tuesday, which was sposed to be our one day in town. Gracelands is marvellous for the crowds, but Chris is right, you don’t need a whole day there.
My favourite part was the two middle aged women in Elvis shirts at lunch together. It looked like if they couldn’t have the King, they’d at least found each other. And all the crap cheap hotels have 24 hour Elvis movies.
I also would recommend the “Elvis is Alive” museum in Wright City Missouri (I think). It only needs an hour, but it will reward you well for that hour.
Jason Soon: “…it‚Äôs all about bemoaning the alleged lack of ‘physical contact‚Äô”
“how people aren‚Äôt full human beings until they have chlidren”
“how we don‚Äôt live in a real community unless we have neighbours peering over our fences watching us pick our noses.”
I’m interested in which articles you’ve made these observations from. Could you provide the links?
Oooh, thanks Zoe. I will have to check those closing days. I missed out on the Kuntskammer in St Pete because of those random unannounced contantly changing museum days off. Oh, OK. I give in, Gracelands here I come.
I believe Popper would have written it “Kunstkammer”, Amanda. You’re spelling is a little risque, to say the least.
That really should have been Hayek. We poppered a long time ago.
Bugger, I can’t believe I missed the Popperversary. I would put nothing past the Petrovians, Fedya.
My (un)favourite moment was in the squash court, where the guide gave some incomprehensible medical explanation of how the King (allegedly) died. I happened to be standing right up the front, momentarily oblivious to the big crowd behind me, most of whom I guess must have been Fox News watchers, and I unwisely said: “but he OD’d on drugs didn’t he?” If looks could kill, I would have been vaporised on the spot. Even my own friends pretended they didn’t know me. Elvis and Gracelands, the sanatised version rules, OK.
The Colonel killed him. End of story.
Jim Jarmusch’s Mystery Train is my favourite Elvis movie – if you haven’t seen it, you should!
The guides are hysterically devoted, but so are most of the pilgrims. So take your rubbish home, Amanda, and no snoozing on the graves.
Anything as long as there is no Bee Gees.
Mark and I had fish and chips last night and made sure to touch elbows. Ha!
Well Kim I think you have well and truly blown Mr Donahoo out of the water. If Charlie and I have fish and chips tonight I’ll make sure we touch elbows too. Probably while the little blighter is stealing all my chips then pointing to my plate and solemnly telling me ‘all gone’.
That’s why you should go to the Merthyr Bowls Club or local equivalent where you get a huge amount of beer battered fish & chips & salad for $15.50!