Everybody would be thrilled to know the dirt on the great orstalyan, media, groupthink.

A book by an insider is really needed. I suspect you are one of the very few, capable, of making it interesting and honest.

The long arm indeed! Francis Wheen spoke at the Brisbane Writers’ Festival a couple of years back and now I’m the owner of a large collection of Richard Thompson’s music and have seen a concert.

It’s good to hear that you don’t hold blogs in as much contempt as you seemed to, and I agree that the sniggerers are at least as much to blame — and also that people who think blogs are a substitute for old-style journalism are living in a fool’s paradise. (I think there are fewer of these than there used to be.)

It’s not linked to in my comment here, but in another post on the Festival of Ideas on my own blog I think I very appreciatively told the story (which wiped out any residual negativity I may have been feeling) about you crossing the street on your way to the festival venue, realising someone was shouting angrily at you out of a truck, and having it dawn on you by slow degrees that the truck driver had mistaken you for John Howard.

Whenever MSM writers step across the (illusionary?) void to comment on blogs, those writers are treated with respect - though challenged. Secondly, that input is enjoyed. Thirdly, it doesn’t seem to negatively affect professional work. Finally, it does us all the world of good.

Cheers, GM, and a lovely Sunday evening to you, in the company of good minds and fair hearts.

My election policy blog (and I stick to that term in this instance, even though we all agree that what I do is journalism, not blogging) would have been a farce if I had less experience as a journalist. Why, to borrow a Ruddism? One reason among many, is because I would not have had the patience to write quickly, and calmly, in response to readers.

Some readers can be cranky. Like most human beings, they have an over-active niggle gene. The niggle gene is a good thing for a journalist to have because he/she can aim it at those in power. But it doesn’t work when engaging in a two-way dialogue with readers.

When I say a decade ago I would have been useless, I feared I would have treated some readers in the same way as politicians, as targets deserving of my razor wit(lessness).

I may still react more curtly than I should to some readers, hence the notion that I am only a little more advanced today.

That’s interesting, GM.

Perhaps part of the skill and experience bloggers have is precisely interaction on the nets. That’s not really a “professional” skill as such - but it’s interesting to note that in some senses it - or at least social interaction - is increasingly being recognised as one - in part prompted by attempts historically to demonstrate the value of “attributes” women often bring to the workplace being revalued as “skills”. There’s another whole story about emotional labour to be told, here, I think, and also one about a blurring of and expansion of skills proper to particular professions - in this case journalism. Because blogs pioneered what is now being incorporated into the expectations of “media work” (on which see Mark Deuze’s excellent book of the same title) and that may also explain some resistances.

I’d also point out that many bloggers are professionals of various sorts when wearing other hats than that of blogger.

There may also be a dynamic feeding the “bloggers v. journos” debate from the late reconceptualisation of journalism as a profession and all its own tensions with what’s represented by terms like “craft”, “trade” and so on - and the angst in some circles about “media studies” courses at uni and the appropriateness or otherwise of teaching journalism.

All this would need more analysis, and like Laura, I’m referring not to you specifically but to the whole thing.

I agree with you that the kinds of writing skills and psychological qualities you identified can make for good, rewarding blogging. But they can be acquired in so many different fields and through many different experiences. I wouldn’t accept that working in journalism necessarily inculcates more patience and a thicker skin than being a teacher, say, or a bhuddist, or a middle child. But then I don’t think you would argue so generally.

PS Meganomics has been dead-quiet for the past 24 hours

It’s the entire intertubes, that unimportant sporting event in China may have something to do with it. First the smog now this, dammed Chinese!

Yep, it is as a journalist that I write for The Australian online. It can’t be any other way, unfortunately.

Kim, don’t worry I wasn’t making some phony observation about the supposed distinction between professional and amateur. But you are right, I view what I do on the net, in part, as professional development for me.

My election policy blog (and I stick to that term in this instance, even though we all agree that what I do is journalism, not blogging) would have been a farce if I had less experience as a journalist. Why, to borrow a Ruddism? One reason among many, is because I would not have had the patience to write quickly, and calmly, in response to readers.

Some readers can be cranky. Like most human beings, they have an over-active niggle gene. The niggle gene is a good thing for a journalist to have because he/she can aim it at those in power. But it doesn’t work when engaging in a two-way dialogue with readers.

When I say a decade ago I would have been useless, I feared I would have treated some readers in the same way as politicians, as targets deserving of my razor wit(lessness).

I may still react more curtly than I should to some readers, hence the notion that I am only a little more advanced today.

The thing I most enjoy about the web is learning something from someone I initially disagreed with. As a journalist, I will get challenged in ways that bloggers won’t. There are so many assumptions operating in a newspaper reader’s mind that I can’t begin to untangle. But when readers hop on to my fraction of the internet, I want to learn how to give each one the benefit of the doubt. When they begin their post with “you moron”, I try to engage without taking it personally. If they don’t give me the benefit of the doubt in return, they cede the right for an on-going conversation. Their stuff will still go on the site, but they can’t expect me to be their punching bag.

This is not meant to sound arrogant. It is, as its most basic level, an issue of time-management and sanity. Some people get their rocks off trading typed abuse with people they have never meant and will never meet. I’m not one of them. Colleagues who leave the moderating of their columns to others are probably being wise. Trust me, I’ve seen the crap that people send in. It would do your head in if you took it literally.

This isn’t a concern in the same way for the blogging community. You can self-select your audience a lot quicker than we do. The people who come to your site come in good faith; like minds so to speak. There is no sense that you are an authority figure to be challenged, so your conversations can go in many more directions.

As Robert notes:

“One of the difficult areas in this topic is an understanding of the different cultures involved: blogging and MSM. We might pretend to be sympathetic one for the other, but I expect one precludes - until and for now - such sympathy for the other.”

True, up to a point. Perhaps the defensiveness at both ends stems from the following: The MSM perceives that many blogs operate on the premise of re-writing content generated by the MSM. (I am not speaking as me here, but giving you a take on perceptions). The MSM sees there is an audience for this dialogue, but can’t be sure how to measure if it is real. It sees, too, that some bloggers are seriously good writers and makes them an offer. The MSM also thinks ‘why let the bloggers pollute out copy’. ‘Why don’t we go online and pull their readers over to our sites.’ The bloggers say ‘get off our turf, what you are doing is journalism, not blogging’. As I say, all true, up to a point.

But the competion, and the conversation can’t be bad for either party. All that can happen from here on is innovation, and a better understanding.

GM

PS Meganomics has been dead-quiet for the past 24 hours. Perhaps we have the same reader, and they had the sense to see I was doing my tying here. Thanks again for the time.

I think GM’s comments about experience were not about professional development or professionalism v amateurism. I think he was giving context and describing his own situation.

Cheers

BBWfB

It also ignores the fact that all sorts of experience goes into and backgrounds blogging. People might know heaps about literature, or economics, or knitting, or feminist analysis, or sport, or … whatever. Even politics. But writing about it on a blog is an avocation, and there are heaps of times when people are posting stuff that isn’t some sort of “argument” or “analysis” or argument - it’s a much freer form of writing than journalism or commentary even if it does have its own rules. And to the degree that it informs and stimulates, it doesn’t need to follow anyone else’s rules - for instance being “comprehensive” or “balanced” or “two-sided” etc when writing about politics (ref. again what Laura said).

The relation between writing and response is also different because it’s not really a response to writing at all, but different levels at which a stack of interesting intelligent people are just having a chat.

I can understand the self-effacement, but what is missing here?

Another, Sean C., once responded to the question of quality political commentary along the lines of “I don’t take myself too seriously”, which I don’t want taken out of context here, as it was given freely and in good faith, and bespoke of quite much more than the quote immediately suggests, which I feel runs along the lines of what GM is saying in part above. A quote below questions this in part.

Maybe this is a bit too nuanced to be of value, or just me, tho to table it all the same: I do think blogging can be regarded as “too serious”, that is, that bloggers take themselves too seriously. I think that is a perception simmering within MSM counterparts (in that they comment on the same things, for publication), among bloggers and commenters and probably non-contributing readers as well. But I think some of this is a misreading, when in fact also bloggers are actually de-cynicising the process of commentary. That is, from a MSM perspective, where one could imagine cynicism wakes up with you each morning, the bloggers’ “taking yourself too seriously” thing, if that registers at all, can and has been misread.

I’m not talking about cynicism per se, existing across the board for politics. I’m talking about the approach in writing - the reason to want to write, those driving forces, that need; a belief.

I would like to ask GM if a certain freshness is enjoyed in blogs, notwithstanding their and our contributing failings, regarding political writing.

Here’s a quote to consider all round:

I wouldn’t have blogged as well a decade ago, and will probably do a better job a decade from now. Translation: I would have been totally useless in 1998, and only next-to-useless ten years from now.

The thought arises from this - perhaps also to be included in the question of “what is Journalism today” - is what to GM is blogging?

My two bobs from a non-blogger reader and contributor perspective is that blogging can take any form it likes, with a pre-determinant being a self-belief. Even though the content may suggest or speak of uncertainties, the act of self-publishing is an act of belief - of non-cynicism. And blogging need not include an availability for that reading public to respond: comments can be turned off.

It appears from GM’s response, above, and this is given with genuine appreciation for GM’s work, that blogging is regarded quite differently from the bloggers themselves. This is not a criticism, merely an observation or takeout from a comment. In dealing with blog commentary, should that have been a reason for my misappropriation of GM’s thoughts in this regard, it’s a worthy consideration to enjoy this process whereby questions, poorly or well placed, or thoughts, similarly so, can be more deeply and widely tendered.

Quickly, I think one of the difficult areas in this topic is an understanding of the different cultures involved: blogging and MSM. We might pretend to be sympathetic one for the other, but I expect one precludes - until and for now - such sympathy for the other. What this thread is doing is testing the walls between the two, opening doors - all appreciated, always - so one might better understand the other. And as always, similarities can be found, if one is positive of mind, more abundantly than differences or points of conflict.

Super-lastly, we are into a passage of change of course, and “journalism” and “blogging” (and YouTube and MySpace and much more) are redefining ways we interact. “Politics” presenting and responding, itself, has been ripped apart, notwithstanding its commentary. For a couple of bobs, a reassessment of what is “blogging” and what is “journalism” would go a long way to not only assist readership, but quality or type of content towards that.

GM’s contributions here on that account I’m sure are roundly (and I hope, freshly,) appreciated.

Is ‘covering both sides’ the only proper way to think about politics, even in the run-up to an election?

We also need to establish what counts as ‘experience in politics’. The drift of your comments here suggests a narrowly professional background - it seems to rule out being a novel-reader, for instance.

Pavlov’s Cat, I could have taken exception at being mistaken for being anti-blogger but probably didn’t because I am a blogger. Have to say I was curious why or perhaps more so ‘how’ you determine that you are losing these fights in literary community conversations?

And as for ‘fostering debate’, eek no. BTW, I mentioned the title of the session in an earlier comment. It was not anti-blogger. I too have never put together a panel. I think it’s like when writing a feature, you always find the perfect person to interview or the question you should have asked, just after it is has gone to print. Oops, did I just admit that?

“Blogging conceived of and executed as a singular soapbox for the individual voice …… The rare and exceptional individual can make it work, but more usually it’s egotistical, thin and pallid”

Hi Laura, as mentioned in first comment here I was given access to the festival but posted the writers festival blog on a voluntary basis at no point being directed on what to post. I also mentioned I have no affiliation to the festival committee, nor am party to their discussions. All of this was not stated in the header but I have always been open to receiving comments. I said in the festival blog that it was not a formal report of the event.

“Because there are a lot of bloggers without ‘long experience in journalism’ who display all that regular ongoing daily commitment to their blogs”

Don’t think anyone is saying otherwise.

Blogging conceived of and executed as a singular soapbox for the individual voice …… The rare and exceptional individual can make it work, but more usually it’s egotistical, thin and pallid”

What criteria determines that it works? What is the measure? Clicks? Getting your point across? Quality of the content? I think GM mentioned in his comment what works about it for him.

For me personally blogging has not been a soapbox but a place to interact, and to experiment and develop other styles of writing with the benefit of completely unpredictable feedback, and completely removed from the day job. So it worked for me. As a commercial proposition, or by any critical standards it would be judge a waste of time. I know bloggers who started barely able to compose a sentence who found their voice through blogging. That works for them. And witnessing that works for me. I love that about blogging.

“By mentioning that GM only took on the blog because of his long experience in journalism, I was referring to remark that it was his experience that enabled him to fulfil the commitment he made to the blog, that he does not take the commitment lightly.”

This interests me. If I heard a paid newspaper ‘blogger’ say this I would immediately call him or her on it as yet another fallacious appeal to irrelevant credentialism. Because there are a lot of bloggers without ‘long experience in journalism’ who display all that regular ongoing daily commitment to their blogs, and a whole lot more, in that they also participate in blog-reading and blog-commenting outside their own singular spaces.

Blogging conceived of and executed as a singular soapbox for the individual voice (as almost all newspaper ‘blogs’ are) is hamstrung in exactly the same way as a Creative Writing course which doesn’t involve a lot of reading. The rare and exceptional individual can make it work, but more usually it’s egotistical, thin and pallid.