Comments on: Mooning the blogosphere http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/ by Jeff Jarvis Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:06:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » New news http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29365 BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » New news Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:46:49 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29365 [...] Want a safer example? When we started community sites at Advance Internet, one of the first was made by a local ballet school. Under the “news” tab, they reported that “the leotards are in.” That’s news. It’s not news because a journalist says it is. A journalist may not think that it matters, but if it matters in the life of a budding ballerina or Howard Stern fan, it is news. The same goes for news about the latest products from Apple, or a kerfuffle about blog comments at the Washington Post, or the top headlines at Digg, or the price my neighbor’s house sells for. News. [...] [...] Want a safer example? When we started community sites at Advance Internet, one of the first was made by a local ballet school. Under the “news” tab, they reported that “the leotards are in.” That’s news. It’s not news because a journalist says it is. A journalist may not think that it matters, but if it matters in the life of a budding ballerina or Howard Stern fan, it is news. The same goes for news about the latest products from Apple, or a kerfuffle about blog comments at the Washington Post, or the top headlines at Digg, or the price my neighbor’s house sells for. News. [...]

]]> By: Mike Krempasky http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29342 Mike Krempasky Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:11:50 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29342 I'm constantly stunned at how smart people make this stuff more complicated than it is. Want community of respectable people? Want to cut down on trolls? Try the 80/20 rule. Spike the anonymity. Period. Force people to speak with their own name and identity - and 80% of the trash goes away. I’m constantly stunned at how smart people make this stuff more complicated than it is. Want community of respectable people? Want to cut down on trolls? Try the 80/20 rule. Spike the anonymity. Period. Force people to speak with their own name and identity - and 80% of the trash goes away.

]]> By: Tish Grier http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29338 Tish Grier Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:56:56 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29338 I've been sitting back and observing this whole thing--since I also got the crap flamed out of me--and I think Brady's simply trying to understand it all. He might even be trying to understand why so many people would feel the need to resort to the kinds of comments they did. But, Jeff, your right that his focus on the negative doesn't do anything to elevate discourse out here. And he keeps calling the negative people "bloggers" when he has no way to verify if they are indeed other bloggers (the Post has no verification features). It kind of smarts to hear how the anonymous fools, who may not be bloggers at all, continue to get some sort of recognition, when the folks who are bloggers, who probably tried to reach out and have meaningful dialogue, were glossed over. The idea of Transparency should be reciprocal if there's going to be meaningful dialogue I’ve been sitting back and observing this whole thing–since I also got the crap flamed out of me–and I think Brady’s simply trying to understand it all. He might even be trying to understand why so many people would feel the need to resort to the kinds of comments they did.

But, Jeff, your right that his focus on the negative doesn’t do anything to elevate discourse out here. And he keeps calling the negative people “bloggers” when he has no way to verify if they are indeed other bloggers (the Post has no verification features). It kind of smarts to hear how the anonymous fools, who may not be bloggers at all, continue to get some sort of recognition, when the folks who are bloggers, who probably tried to reach out and have meaningful dialogue, were glossed over. The idea of Transparency should be reciprocal if there’s going to be meaningful dialogue

]]> By: ruth http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29336 ruth Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:47:07 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29336 The story behind the brouhaha is fascinating, as well, that the 'shared guilt' which Howell claimed in Abramff's largesse never existed, and yet in each new edition of the story the wapo ombudsman insists on it. The infuriated response was to the inaccuracy - Dems got no contribs from Abramoff, and 'directing' contribs to Dems as claimed in Sunday's edition, would hardly have resulted in reduced funds to them, which actually happened - AN INACCURACY which continues from one version to the next. Why insist on reasoned response, when the basis of the story is insistently wrong. This does strike me as seeking to instigate reader rudeness. The story behind the brouhaha is fascinating, as well, that the ’shared guilt’ which Howell claimed in Abramff’s largesse never existed, and yet in each new edition of the story the wapo ombudsman insists on it. The infuriated response was to the inaccuracy - Dems got no contribs from Abramoff, and ‘directing’ contribs to Dems as claimed in Sunday’s edition, would hardly have resulted in reduced funds to them, which actually happened - AN INACCURACY which continues from one version to the next. Why insist on reasoned response, when the basis of the story is insistently wrong. This does strike me as seeking to instigate reader rudeness.

]]> By: Ivan Dylko http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29325 Ivan Dylko Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:42:31 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29325 Great point! msm - they hate transperancy and oversight - directed at them. Originator of communication field, Paul Lazasfeld said in 1948 that media considers criticism to be vital to our democratic system, but hate criticism when it's directed at them... the old guy is still right today when he called it "institutional disease"... Great point! msm - they hate transperancy and oversight - directed at them. Originator of communication field, Paul Lazasfeld said in 1948 that media considers criticism to be vital to our democratic system, but hate criticism when it’s directed at them… the old guy is still right today when he called it “institutional disease”…

]]> By: David Crisp http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29316 David Crisp Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:21:14 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29316 Since blogs are a return to the days of pamphleteering, on my own blog I have suggested a return to the way these kinds of problems were handled in those days: dueling. People would be a lot nicer if they knew they might have to face a loaded pistol at dawn. Since blogs are a return to the days of pamphleteering, on my own blog I have suggested a return to the way these kinds of problems were handled in those days: dueling. People would be a lot nicer if they knew they might have to face a loaded pistol at dawn.

]]> By: Reid http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29313 Reid Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:01:31 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29313 So, he devalued the Post community throwing "the spotlight on the assholes." Do perhaps "the assholes" have some responsibility for devaluing that community as well? Or is it all the fault of those that control the site for even pointing out their existence? You seem to think they should simply be ignored, and focus on the "good guys." Yet you used to get all bent out of shape and delete people who used the F-word in your comments. You pointed them out and said it wasn't acceptable because it might get your site blocked by filters in some locations. It was your right to control your site in that manner. Pity the Post doesn't seem to have the same rights. So, he devalued the Post community throwing “the spotlight on the assholes.” Do perhaps “the assholes” have some responsibility for devaluing that community as well? Or is it all the fault of those that control the site for even pointing out their existence?

You seem to think they should simply be ignored, and focus on the “good guys.”

Yet you used to get all bent out of shape and delete people who used the F-word in your comments. You pointed them out and said it wasn’t acceptable because it might get your site blocked by filters in some locations.

It was your right to control your site in that manner. Pity the Post doesn’t seem to have the same rights.

]]> By: Jeff Jarvis http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29295 Jeff Jarvis Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:36:30 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29295 David, You ask another very good question, which is how to not just ignore the asses but elevate the level of discourse. I get asked that all the time. And my advice is generally to enter in. If Deb Howell had come into the comments herself (and also just responded in a more timely manner) people would have had to treat her as a person. In a sense, she was the anonymous one and so they treated her as a commodity. I'm not justifying that, just talking about human behavior. When you face a bully, people tend to cool down. When you ignore an angry person, he gets more angry. As for Davids column, that is just my point: He picked the wrong subject. He threw the spotlight on the assholes when it would have been far more productive for all constituencies to throw it onto the intelligent, civilized, helpful members of the Post community. He devalued the entire community doing that. And that is not productive. David,
You ask another very good question, which is how to not just ignore the asses but elevate the level of discourse. I get asked that all the time. And my advice is generally to enter in. If Deb Howell had come into the comments herself (and also just responded in a more timely manner) people would have had to treat her as a person. In a sense, she was the anonymous one and so they treated her as a commodity. I’m not justifying that, just talking about human behavior. When you face a bully, people tend to cool down. When you ignore an angry person, he gets more angry.
As for Davids column, that is just my point: He picked the wrong subject. He threw the spotlight on the assholes when it would have been far more productive for all constituencies to throw it onto the intelligent, civilized, helpful members of the Post community. He devalued the entire community doing that. And that is not productive.

]]> By: David Crisp http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29290 David Crisp Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:22:36 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29290 Kat, You are quite right to discount anonymous sources in news stories, but that isn't quite the same thing. The identities of anonymous sources are at least known to those doing the reporting, and their information presumably has been checked out. But there is no question that those stories deserve extra skepticism. Jeff, it's a good question, and I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's possible to just ignore the assholes. For one thing, a lot of thoughtful people won't comment if they know they can expect at any moment to be dismissed as idiots and morons. Call them wimps and wussies if you will, but they just won't do it. I don't know that Brady ignored the good interaction; it just didn't happen to be the topic of his column. And that's the thing about the anonymous jerks: They drag down the tone of the whole discussion. Even my tiny blog gets overrun, no matter how I try to monitor it and admonish offenders. Maybe there's a technological fix, but I think anonymity is the culprit. People who can hide behind a cloak will say things they would never have the guts to say in person or with their name attached. Kat, You are quite right to discount anonymous sources in news stories, but that isn’t quite the same thing. The identities of anonymous sources are at least known to those doing the reporting, and their information presumably has been checked out. But there is no question that those stories deserve extra skepticism.

Jeff, it’s a good question, and I don’t know the answer, but I don’t think it’s possible to just ignore the assholes. For one thing, a lot of thoughtful people won’t comment if they know they can expect at any moment to be dismissed as idiots and morons. Call them wimps and wussies if you will, but they just won’t do it.

I don’t know that Brady ignored the good interaction; it just didn’t happen to be the topic of his column. And that’s the thing about the anonymous jerks: They drag down the tone of the whole discussion. Even my tiny blog gets overrun, no matter how I try to monitor it and admonish offenders.

Maybe there’s a technological fix, but I think anonymity is the culprit. People who can hide behind a cloak will say things they would never have the guts to say in person or with their name attached.

]]> By: Gray http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29287 Gray Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:00:00 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29287 100% ack, Jeff. After all, Brady says, WaPo.com wants to "open up the Post Web site to its readers", they "launched more than 30 blogs" and "added links to related blogs". And it sure pays off. They have lotzs of responses from readers and blogs. But it isn't a dialogue yet, since the post doesn't answer in Internet real time to the valid points readers and bloggers post. In fact, this led to the negative feelings about the ombudsstink. And to add insult to injury, Brady concentrates post debacle on blaming the rotten apples among the readers, not giving a single encouraging word to those who posted their opinion in a civilized and respectful manner. Well, I didn't participate in the 'Abramoff' thread, but in the earlier 'Froomkin' outburst. And I feel p***ed that Brady is playing the blame game instead of improving the WaPo interactive experience. They need better software with filters (hmm, but not your filter, Jeff, you know what I think), Mods that will be i charge of the threads 24/7, and a new culture of accountability on valid critic raised by the readers. This online world requires another type of journalist, every sentence and wording matters because it may be used in political arguments. H.L. Mencken (who has been quite 'liberal' with the truth, I heard), wouldn't be able to keep his job for 3 months nowadays. These are the demanding, but viable tasks Brady and WaPo are facing. A guy with "10 years spent in online media" should know when to concentrate on the issues and come over the setbacks of yesterday, no matter how insulting they have been. To stir up the discussion again and again, even when it's damaging for the company, simply isn't a sign of the professionalism that's needed for the job. 100% ack, Jeff. After all, Brady says, WaPo.com wants to “open up the Post Web site to its readers”, they “launched more than 30 blogs” and “added links to related blogs”. And it sure pays off. They have lotzs of responses from readers and blogs. But it isn’t a dialogue yet, since the post doesn’t answer in Internet real time to the valid points readers and bloggers post. In fact, this led to the negative feelings about the ombudsstink. And to add insult to injury, Brady concentrates post debacle on blaming the rotten apples among the readers, not giving a single encouraging word to those who posted their opinion in a civilized and respectful manner.

Well, I didn’t participate in the ‘Abramoff’ thread, but in the earlier ‘Froomkin’ outburst. And I feel p***ed that Brady is playing the blame game instead of improving the WaPo interactive experience. They need better software with filters (hmm, but not your filter, Jeff, you know what I think), Mods that will be i charge of the threads 24/7, and a new culture of accountability on valid critic raised by the readers. This online world requires another type of journalist, every sentence and wording matters because it may be used in political arguments. H.L. Mencken (who has been quite ‘liberal’ with the truth, I heard), wouldn’t be able to keep his job for 3 months nowadays. These are the demanding, but viable tasks Brady and WaPo are facing. A guy with “10 years spent in online media” should know when to concentrate on the issues and come over the setbacks of yesterday, no matter how insulting they have been. To stir up the discussion again and again, even when it’s damaging for the company, simply isn’t a sign of the professionalism that’s needed for the job.

]]> By: Jeff Jarvis http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29280 Jeff Jarvis Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:41:45 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29280 And how do you propose we "deal with" that? How about ignoring the anonymous assholes and paying attention to the many people who have something worthwhile to say and judging the public and its interactivity on that basis instead of the one on which Brady would have his readers judge it? In Brady's own chat, there was lots of good interaction but he ignores that and doesn't tell his readers (including those in the newsroom) about it but only concentrates on his juvenile pissing match with one blogger. That's not what I would call "dealing with" it. And how do you propose we “deal with” that? How about ignoring the anonymous assholes and paying attention to the many people who have something worthwhile to say and judging the public and its interactivity on that basis instead of the one on which Brady would have his readers judge it? In Brady’s own chat, there was lots of good interaction but he ignores that and doesn’t tell his readers (including those in the newsroom) about it but only concentrates on his juvenile pissing match with one blogger. That’s not what I would call “dealing with” it.

]]> By: kat http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29279 kat Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:40:46 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29279 That's kind of a double standard. The media is beneath listening to anonymous people, yet constantly uses 'anonymous sources' to promote a story. I'm supposed to trust the media and accept their anonymous sources, no questions asked? I have news for the media--I apply a deep discount to their so-called anonymous sources...the people who give damaging info to the media, but refuse to be identified. That’s kind of a double standard. The media is beneath listening to anonymous people, yet constantly uses ‘anonymous sources’ to promote a story. I’m supposed to trust the media and accept their anonymous sources, no questions asked? I have news for the media–I apply a deep discount to their so-called anonymous sources…the people who give damaging info to the media, but refuse to be identified.

]]> By: David Crisp http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29278 David Crisp Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:18:28 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29278 I think you are way off base here. Brady points to a real and damaging problem: the extraordinarily low and abusive quality of discourse in the blogosphere. It isn't true that newsmen aren't used to taking it. Criticism comes with the territory, and you can't survive if you can't live with it. But news people apply a deep discount to anonymous comments: the people who send in unsigned letters or won't identify themselves over the phone. That always has been the nastiest and least rational feedback. Lots of news people won't even read unsigned letters; I always read mine, but I don't think I've ever learned anything helpful from one. The blogosphere has taken what was once a small fraction of public feedback and magnified it a million times. Even the most thoughtful bloggers frequently have comment threads full of the worst kind of filth and abuse -- most of it anonymous and without even the cooling-off period that finding a stamp and envelope requires. It's a problem the blogosphere will have to deal with if it's going to grow up. I think you are way off base here. Brady points to a real and damaging problem: the extraordinarily low and abusive quality of discourse in the blogosphere. It isn’t true that newsmen aren’t used to taking it. Criticism comes with the territory, and you can’t survive if you can’t live with it.

But news people apply a deep discount to anonymous comments: the people who send in unsigned letters or won’t identify themselves over the phone. That always has been the nastiest and least rational feedback. Lots of news people won’t even read unsigned letters; I always read mine, but I don’t think I’ve ever learned anything helpful from one.

The blogosphere has taken what was once a small fraction of public feedback and magnified it a million times. Even the most thoughtful bloggers frequently have comment threads full of the worst kind of filth and abuse — most of it anonymous and without even the cooling-off period that finding a stamp and envelope requires.

It’s a problem the blogosphere will have to deal with if it’s going to grow up.

]]> By: kat http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29275 kat Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:03:09 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29275 The MSM is having a hard time giving up control of what what we should or should not hear or read. Blogs don't print the politically correct version of the news, they try to get at the truth. It is as difficult for MSM as it is to Pravda to give up the controlling of minds and instilling in minds the MSM version of events. The cartoon thing was an excellent example. We were told we must respect islam while being told Christianity and Judaism were fair game as the NYT dealt with the events by posting Mary made of elephant poop and CNN showed highly offensive cartoons regarding Jews, all the time being told over and over again that we must respect islam and not say anything against poobah. We must not think for ourselves, but accept the MSM as the gospel truth. Interactivity dares question the media mullahs. The MSM is having a hard time giving up control of what what we should or should not hear or read. Blogs don’t print the politically correct version of the news, they try to get at the truth. It is as difficult for MSM as it is to Pravda to give up the controlling of minds and instilling in minds the MSM version of events. The cartoon thing was an excellent example. We were told we must respect islam while being told Christianity and Judaism were fair game as the NYT dealt with the events by posting Mary made of elephant poop and CNN showed highly offensive cartoons regarding Jews, all the time being told over and over again that we must respect islam and not say anything against poobah. We must not think for ourselves, but accept the MSM as the gospel truth. Interactivity dares question the media mullahs.

]]> By: Chris Selland http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/02/12/mooning-the-blogosphere/#comment-29273 Chris Selland Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:48:37 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1130#comment-29273 Great post - my favorite line is how he complains about what is 'so crude as to be unprintable in a family newspaper'. Nobody in my family reads 'a newspaper' - especially my kids. On the rare occasion when I bring one home (usually after getting off an airplane because I wasn't able to get online) my kids look at it like those 33 1/3 albums I have stored in the basement. Great post - my favorite line is how he complains about what is ’so crude as to be unprintable in a family newspaper’. Nobody in my family reads ‘a newspaper’ - especially my kids. On the rare occasion when I bring one home (usually after getting off an airplane because I wasn’t able to get online) my kids look at it like those 33 1/3 albums I have stored in the basement.

]]>