There has been some negative reaction in the blogosphere to a piece by David Burchell in The Australian newspaper entitled ‘Huddled Lasses Yearn to be Free’. The title is presumably with reference to the young Cuban blogger, Yoani Sanchez, whom Burchell suggests with some admiration has played a significant role in the struggle for freedom in Cuba.
But here in Australia, according to David Burcell, the blogosphere is mostly a “vast outpouring of pseudo-expertise and vituperation” serving mainly as “a testament to Western societies’ tendency for producing self-important, opinionated folks far in excess of our capacity to employ them.”
Burcell continues, “in this the blogosphere resembles the so-called literary low-life of the decades before the French Revolution. In those days resentful and under-employed scribblers amused themselves by illegally publishing salacious rumours about Marie Antoinette or the clergy, the better to strip away the sacred veil of monarchical rule. Except that, in those days, publishing even salacious rumours required a certain sort of bravery.”
Wow!
But then again, on reflection, as I see it, all writing requires a certain amount of bravery.
When it comes to blogging there is always the risk that the writer might get something seriously wrong and with it ruin reputations and any hope of financial security.
Indeed I have never met anyone who wrote primarily for notoriety, or job security, or in the hope of becoming rich.
Many bloggers, like myself, write primarily because we want to communicate, we feel a need to communicate, and in my case to provide an alternative perspective on important environmental issues.
But the real difference between a blog, and an article in The Australian newspaper, is that the blogger lays his thoughts and evidence open to criticism the moment the text is uploaded. There is no retreat and no hiding behind letter editors.
In the ‘mud-wresting’ (as Burchell describes it) that follows the posting of a blog entry there is much potential to have fun, test the strength of your argument, make friends, and even learn something important, new and interesting.
Thanks for reading and often wresting with the evidence and ideas.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Part of the vainglory that our denizens of the “meeja” relish in is the power to not publish an embarrassing Letter to the Editor, or to push the cut-off delay button (talkback), or to edit a news report (TV), or simply not ask questions on previously-agreed “taboo” topics (all of them).
An example of all of these elements in the same bundle is the long-running, still current theme of Aboriginal in-house violence.
Journos complaining about mud-wrestling present an irresistibly funny sight, more so since laughter really wounds their vanity.
They so hate competing with the anarchic internet (which has its’ own problems, of course), but we are not required to trust any of them. Still, the “net” provides the most efficient method of tracking down actual hard fact (obviously takes some persistence and a great deal of cross-checking scepticism).
I would nominate Google Search, Google Earth and Google Scholar as the most influential segments of communications in history (way faster, more effective and cheaper than paper books). No, I don’t own shares in Google – for those Watermelons who would censor this capability if they were able to, as the Chinese Govt does.
Blogs are a useful form of talking – as long as one remains objective. Traditional “meeja” are hostage to the vanity of its’ journalists and the commercial needs of the owners. A combination made in hell.
“Many bloggers, like myself, write primarily because we want to communicate, we feel a need to communicate, and in my case to provide an alternative perspective on important environmental issues.”
I would guess that is why most of us post here too.
“But the real difference between a blog, and an article in The Australian newspaper, is that the blogger lays his thoughts and evidence open to criticism the moment the text is uploaded. There is no retreat and no hiding behind letter editors.”
True, but there is always the blog dictator that deletes what he doesn’t like and before it has barely existed your words can get vaporised! There is a sense of transience in that respect (amongst other things…). Perhaps blogging is the graffiti to say The Australian’s commissioned painter.
“Thanks for reading and often wresting with the evidence and ideas.”
Thank you Jen for the opportunity.
There is also one other difference which reinforces the similarity with the anonymous pamphleteers of pre-revolutionary France. It is the capacity to defame from the protection of anonymity.
All the other media face an obligation to identify the person making a statement whereas the blogosphere allows non-people to make the most outrageous, and gutless slurs about real people.
In all other forms of communication a statement of a general nature that might impugn the reputation of a generalised class, ie, non-defamatory, is regarded as being quite distinct from a similar statement about a named individual, which is defamatory.
Every other form of public discourse recognises the right of every individual to maintain their reputation without being unfairly sullied.
And what the Cuban blogger demonstrates is how any concession of these obligations in unusual or extenuating circumstances, as life under an unelected dictator obviously is, will be grossly abused by those who have no such extenuating defence.
The anonymous cheap shot merchants on this and many other blogs are not fit to be a Cuban blogger’s armpit. The respect accorded to the Cuban is in direct proportion to the risk he takes in making his posts. The anonymous blog troll, on the other hand, carries no risk at all and, accordingly, deserves no respect.
Eventually the mainstream media will cotton on to the fact that many blogs are actually competitors in the publishing business. And they are losing market share to a class of competitors who are not paying their dues to society. Blogs do not wear the cost of maintaining community standards, like the rest of the industry do. But not for long, folks, not for long.
Hey all, yep it’s me Al Gore again, oops, I’ve outed me.
I read the piece the other day, by Mr Birchell and noted straight away, there was no way to respond to his offensive article directly, oh he salaciously uses the last Paragraph and the cuban blogger to somehow blunt his direct attack at the Blogspere, but a pretty crude piece just the same.
Some people haven’t come to terms that the blogsphere and blogging are very huge terms in themselves and as much a legitmate literary or media source as any, let’s face it, the media talkng about shonks and the Trash papparazzi toilet papers, or empty headed vogues and so on. Dime store novels.
Or guilt and innocence decided by awarding a beauty contest opinion see the case of Corby and Iguana girl. No one stands for a plain Jane and we just about went to war over the pretty little hair dresser and what about disparity in the actual offences, one was pissed and got aggro inapproriately said some stuff and covered it up and the other smuggled a heap of Mull (a shitload in the vernacular) but those damn sneaky photos infaming sympathy or vitriol. And they rave on about blogs and no responsibility, which is crap, the blogger does not have an inhouse legal adviser or team of twenty year veteran editors over his or her work.
The blogsphere has shaken some core journalistic empires and mightily, Dan Rather and so on. I think that writing an article or a book without feedback unless it’s the vague book sales and revenue critique available does not truly link the writer to the audience.
The other thing is the writer knows within 24 hours the success in the piece, by clicks and counts and this will scare the old pedestrians who may rely on editor mates and their taste and not audience tastes.
As for nom de plume, shit that’s as old as literature itself. As someone who worked in finance at the entry of Banking on the internet, we hammered to the audience, privacy and security, the internet is dangerous. So privacy and adopting nom de blogs and multiple free internet addresses is realistic.
Me If I think it’s important I say it with my name nowadays but if I’m having a bit of a crack at the issue but tongue incheek Ill use a sockie.
Long winded opinion, prune if you want, but I started blogging in 1999, kind of, and started bouncing the ANBC online boards just after that..
Snippy little journo twerps snearing down on the blogsphere get up my nose.
Of course there are hateful people who will threaten or attack you simply for who you are not what you say. I must say pseudonyms for many of us are the way to go …. why i even like making up nicks for some public goofballs too. However my point is that as a limited nobody poster here i may even need to work harder to establish credibility rather than relying on credentials if this was a matter of importance. In my case identity isn’t because the argument/opinion should be able to stand on its own merit if it makes sense.
“All the other media face an obligation to identify the person making a statement”
But not the source of the leak – so where’s the trust in accuracy and reliability ?
” … the mainstream media will cotton on to the fact that many blogs are actually competitors in the publishing business”
I think that is already known and there is nought to do about it. Hence articles like the one we are discussing – just impotent spite. The essential point is that internet debate will sort its’ own agendas, not necessarily those the mainstream journos and proprietors want. To test this, just ask an ABC, Australian or Herald sub-editor firstly how the reported stories are chosen, and secondly what informs the editing of them. No answer is the courageous reply.
“But not for long, folks, not for long.”
Pray tell, exactly what does that mean ? Now I’m intrigued.
There is much frothing around the cakehole at the Quiggin establishment over this Oz article.
The Internet is the ultimate free marketplace of ideas. It is the new wilderness, a virtual intellectual ecosystem.
Memes are born here and most meet their timely demise here. Natural selection is something that we often assume ended with the rise of civilization. Not so. Far from the end of evolution, efficient natural selection is accelerating. The Australian, the ABC, et al, are the dinosaurs. Your blog is a scrappy proto-mammal scampering between their gargantuan legs.
The future is yours to lose.
Burcell likens today’s “real” journalists to Marie Antoinette. How apt. He seems to be losing his head over alternative news sources.
Jen,
As someone who is probably more responsible than just about anyone else, apart from you, for the start of your blogging career, you don’t have anything to apologise for. You’ve done cyber space proud. I’m sure Burchell didn’t have you in mind, although there was something reminiscent of Marie Antoinette in your old photo;-).
Your first post was on the 14th of April 2005 (at least according to the archive) and the quality started high, and remains so. For a “toddler”, you’re pretty grown-up. You should have a belated birthday party so we can all say what we value about your blog. That’s another thing about the blogosphere – along with the hypertext mark-up goes a lot of hypercriticism. We should take more time out to praise rather than criticise.
Ianl, what I mean is that the more successful blogs become the more certain it will be that community values will catch up and demand appropriate standards.
Many blogs already have the capacity to tell whether an address is a real one or not. The extension of the concept of duty of care to include a capacity to identify a poster in the event of a defamatory post is a logical next step. And one that most judges would readily understand the need for.
It will only take one well selected court case and this crock of the proverbial will smarten up real quick.
“But the real difference between a blog, and an article in The Australian newspaper, is that the blogger lays his thoughts and evidence open to criticism the moment the text is uploaded. There is no retreat and no hiding behind letter editors.”
Mark Twain said that a lie could travel half way around the world before the truth even pulls its boots on. Obviously, he had broadband access.
As a former journalist, I can testify hiding behind the letters editor is an awful uncomfortable haven when the managing editor stomps into the newsroom with a fist full of complaints looking for an explanation. At least blogging you’re your own boss and nothing more than your ego is at stake.
The real difference is the utter democracy and free exchange of ideas that is potentially possible. It is the breakdown of the wall that separates the audience from the stage. Today anyone with Internet access, literacy skills (however weak) and an idea can participate in the greatest emporium of ideas in the known universe, as Douglas Adams might have said. The middlemen have been eliminated. Merit is rewarded (if only with propagation) regardless of personal connexions or class.
This is as profound a phase shift as the printing press was to the monastery scribes, perhaps more so. Of course, it’s noisy and anarchic, so is a baby in the bathwater.
I wonder who first domesticated fire? We know the names of those who invented the Internet. The two phase shifts will one day be seen as peers.
The fact that the world is full of self-important opinionated folks with the time to post comments is simply an indication of the success of our capitalist democracy at wealth creation.
A quick review of the history of the free press in the Anglosphere will show that mud wrestling and vituperation are the norm rather than phenomena unique to the blogosphere. And still, for instance, the yanks managed to pull the stunning insights of the Federalist Papers out of the morass. Even the low-life scribbler culture of pre-revolutionary France produced Voltaire and Rousseau as best selling authors not to mention the bloody revolution itself. Ideas evolve in nonlinear fashions that defy all auguries. Words are the most plastic of all mediums.
The key to a good blog is a clever moderator with a sense of humour and a dash of mischief, perhaps proper work for an underemployed letters editor.
The Enlightenment we understand as a struggle in the name of reason, against tyranny, superstition and inequity, but at its core was the new communications medium with the printing press. Where once there was but the spoken word, and then the beautifully hand written word, now we have the printed word. Next we have the wire which then goes from the wire to the wireless. Wireless is a one to many dictatorship of the loud voice and hence the modernism of the early twentieth century is reflective of extremes of unreason. It is not surprising that television gave us the lateral postmodern but the internet is interactive, democratic with a deeper realism and our new enlightenment.
Let’s ask one of the bigger questions …. how does reason justify itself and just how do we communicate?
Well, Modernism of the early 20thC is highly problematic because it presents as mechanical and seemingly a period of unreason flirting seriously with irrationalism. However the art movement DADA is where we first see that there is nothing to prevent reason from challenging reason. i.e. In the midst of modernism already is the theme of postmodernism. The postmodern from the late 1950s represented learning as a move from the centre, a move to deny a centre, a move from the grand narrative, a move from the linear ………..AND to consider the relativism of culture, identity, environment, etc … But it is lateral only.
From 1995, with the birth proper of the www it now makes sense that the postmodern has mutated with a hyperlink to the 360 degrees of an infinite meta-narrative with its global network of moderators and always connected. (lateral plus lineal and neither a system but an environment) ………. and coax out of chaos the rudiments of a civility without borders. i.e Our new enlightenment beyond the postmodern. It also says that learning is somewhat more inherently nomadic rather than homogenous, ……. that learning may rely on relevance, observation and curiosity far more than memory or the system.
How do we communicate then? Well we now have a communications medium unlike others that were always one to many forms. Rather than the “word” it is now many to many communications where there are real enticement rules that you do get to vote on. So let’s debate, let’s have a chat, let’s share thoughts …….. no matter how wacky.
Ian,
You raise an interesting point when you say, “All the other media face an obligation to identify the person making a statement whereas the blogosphere allows non-people to make the most outrageous, and gutless slurs about real people.”
True enough. Even so, it’s also true that the mass media (newspapers, TV, radio) routinely “make the most outrageous, and gutless slurs”.
Junk science, pandering to special interests, and worse are rampant in the mass media. Does this make them “gutless”? Or courageous?
Neither, I think. Most of them are as sloppy and opinionated as the average blogger–they just get paid better–and generally have a better grasp of grammar and spelling.
“… the blogosphere allows non-people to make the most outrageous, and gutless slurs about real people.”
Yes, but the blogosphere is the medium, not the agent. It’s a bit like saying email allows phishing frauds. Or the ocean allows boating accidents.
Our hosts have our email addresses. To delete (or not) slurs and non sequiturs or issue guidelines on what will not be tolerated then enforce those guidelines by blocking serial offenders if they continue bad behavior is the choice of our hosts. No worries, no one will have to be blocked, they’ll behave if told they must.
There is no blog protocol that protects an infantile poster’s right to detract from a blog’s readability, anonymously or not. We are here completely at the grace and forbearance of our host.
It isn’t so much the posters that count, but the readers. Lurking eyes are more sensitive than the egos that post and far more numerous. They’ll vote by clicking away from blogs that are ugly and insulting. The readers and thread integrity need to be the main concern of the blog, not the right of the posters to vent, go off topic or post mindless rubbish.
If there is a reason to blog, it must be to communicate. Threads clogged with vituperation are a turn off to most readers, yet often not to the minority of posters who thrive on conflict.
A vacuum is not the same as the freedom to debate. Without moderation a single poster with a malicious streak can hijack a thread into the upper levels of Dante’s inferno. The ad hominem disease quickly becomes a contagion. No one remembers who started it. The heated urge to type a rapid retort replete with things one would never say at a dinner party is almost too much to resist for many otherwise sane contributors. Ultimately the whole tenor of a blog is infected, abuse becomes the norm, everyone is dragged down. Real insight or debate becomes utterly impossible. Readers leave for more fertile sites.
Some sites isolate the urge to vent on “unthreaded” threads where they allow posters to thrash about like fish in a barrel.
Sensitive moderation with verve and a bit a discipline supplies the sort of human face to the cyberspace void that normally contains people’s behavior in public. It can raise the level of discourse to beyond a virtual brawl to that of a cocktail party of intellectuals, the wit, snark and mischief still well intact, even while there are consequences to shocking behavior, just as there is to such behavior in the real world.
And we can still all be (kind of) anonymous. Imagine that.
Amen, wes george, you have it right.