You actions speak somewhat loudly on that issue. Following SHel Israel’s advice?

I was the ‘winner’ of a cruelly sarcastic blog award in the UK recently (no link obviously). Here are the lessons I learned:

Get your retaliation in first (I linked to the award when I saw I was shortlisted in anticipation of some new visitors).

Accept that these things are a backhanded compliment. I was genuinely flattered to be shortlisted amongst some blogging luminaries from the worlds of journalism and PR (I’m reluctant to say so, but you were among them).

Get over it quickly. I know there’s a long tail for information, but if newspapers quickly fade, blog storms tend to rise and fall with the speed of people’s RSS readers.

Keep up the good work – which I mainly consume via your column in the print edition of Media Guardian. Ha!

Best,
Mike

But there is a bit truth in that snark, in that the new media triumphalism should be leavened with more sympathy for those losing their jobs because of forces mostly beyond their control. For those thrown out on the streets by newspaper executives who couldn’t or wouldn’t adapt to changes, posting about visits to lavish forums while they worry about health insurance doesn’t sit well.

Your blog provides some of the tools to help journos adapt, but the tone may grate on those who get bitter and cling to their newsprint. So some friendly guidance is always appreciated. Acknowledging the human cost of the transition, and that we don’t have all the answers, would go a long way.

Your best defense against critics is to continue posting valuable information, graciously recognize when they’re right, and not get distracted by being baited into an intemperate response to an unbalanced rant.

Talk about trying to shut down your vaunted “conversation.” You’re acting pretty childish here.

I like this blog alot but Rosenbaum raised many valid points and he was also right when he said that your summary of his points was inaccurate. Not to mention your silly follw-up name calling.

That said, I don’t think Rosenbaum did himself any favours when he played the I’m-getting-lots-of-emails-agreeing-with-me card.

So far, neither you nor your staunch defenders have addressed the substance of Rosenbaum’s arguments, but I suppose if he’s a troll, anything he says is just trollishness.

And they say women are catty. Meow!

“It is my deeply-considered view, after many, many, years of observing this issue, that the discussion becomes somewhere between absurd and cruel. It is not “conversation” when one person speaks to ten, hundreds, of thousands, and the target may have some obscure response off somewhere read by a few friends and family.”

But besides that – I’ll say what I said elsewhere (and sooner or later when I get a chance to post it to my blog) – that Slate piece was trash.

Your response was perfect as well. Other people, dealing with similar situations, who do not have your voice, might need other means to fend off such viciousness, but you did the right thing for you Jeff.

lee- $1.25

jrco.pk- ~.01

gm- $3

iar- .20

and you’re worried about being attacked for your take on “the future”?

i’d say mean old mr. market is telling you you’re on the right track.

hang in there.

On the bright side, controversy is a time honored way to get attention—HipHop battles, Pro Wrestling vendettas, political elections—verbal battles are entertaining to watch (if not always to be personally engaged in). So when some hater hates on you and you come back at them, it brings you more attention. And that expands your influence. All the better if there’s some substance in the exchange. And you did deliver on that.

Look forward to checking out your book.

I’ve posted this before, the last time this topic came up:

It is my deeply-considered view, after many, many, years of observing this issue, that the discussion becomes somewhere between absurd and cruel. It is not “conversation” when one person speaks to ten, hundreds, of thousands, and the target may have some obscure response off somewhere read by a few friends and family.

Some people don’t believe in libel law as a matter of principle – they say it’s the province of the rich who don’t need it, that the little guy who might need it can’t fight back anyway, if you’re smeared, just “take it” because attempting any sort of defense will only make the situation worse. That’s one general point of view, and it has nothing specific to do with blogs or Internet.

Alternately, if one does believe in libel law, then we know (“Power Law Distribution”) that there are vast, enormous, audience disparities, which apply to blogs and the Internet as well as other media. It’s a mathematical fact, and denying that doesn’t make it go away. Some “bloggers” are for all intents and purposes the same as a mainstream media syndicated columnist. How many times have you heard some boast like “I have [huge number] readers, that’s more than [media outlet]!”. And we can’t all have a zillion readers, again, that’s just a fact.

Sometimes disputes take place between relative equals. On occasion, a weak target can become a cause-celebre. But that such cases exist does not invalid that there’s plenty of situations where a person who is libeled has no EFFECTIVE means to reach any sort of comparable audience. To rebut the idea that it *could* happen, individually, we all *could* win the lottery – but almost all of us won’t.

Again, there’s an argument that libel law is more harm than good. But for heaven’s sake, don’t tell the Great Unread, who make tiny mostly-unheard squeaks compared the booming megaphones of A-listers, that they can eat cake.

1. Being human means it is ok to get pissed off.
2. More people value your open insight than oppose it.
3. Taking risks makes others nervous.
4. Market transformations – steel, auto, newspapers – are upsetting esp. if you happen to be in one. Easier to attack than to accept a life’s career is over.
5. Pioneer’s are the ones wit arrows in their backs.

In practice, this attitude was so prevalent that you could get in trouble with your bosses for responding honestly and directly to over-the-top critics. But it’s another example of a low-bandwidth artifact that doesn’t translate into a high-bandwidth era.

And here’s the rub: It turns out the proper response to this kind of criticism has to begin BEFORE IT OCCURS. Because if you’re writing (or broadcasting — whatever) with that traditional institutional smugness and then responding with personal inflection, that simply doesn’t scale. Your critics will hate the initial condescension, and the lurking audience of people who are watching the food fight and trying to decide who has the high ground are unlikely to be moved by a sudden appeal to personal humility or outrage.

In other words, your response to Rosenbaum attack violated classic (Edelman) PR edicts, but it “worked” because you were in character as Jeff Jarvis, a smart guy who is occasionally a snarky asshole. You passed the Dave Winer integrity test: “Be What You Appear To Be.” It also worked because it showed you to be a vulnerable human being.

When I was a city editor I used to tell my reporters that the dividing line between wisdom and hackery is that hacks are emotionally invulnerable. I hate being criticized — I can obsess over it and fly into rages, etc. — but I try to console myself with the thought that if my emotions are a canary in the hackdom coal mine, at least I haven’t become what I hate. Yet.

Trolls lurking with intent to mar the quality of our online world won’t be stopped, yet they can, as you said, be starved.

Your thoughts on the evolution of global vulnerability are valid. I feel this vulnerability has promoted a closer group of communicators who come out of their own shadow to expose emotions, ideas, and change for the better. The essence of this paradigm shift, I believe, has put a damper on the old-school flaming and opened the door for collaborative encouragement.

While the redundant iterations of information can become tiresome, I have noticed the comments being left in most circles are usually positive, even if it is a basic post on something covered 10x over within the blogosphere. If nothing else, self confidence is being built in bloggers who are beginning to learn the power of their voice. It can be heard. It will be heard.

Just be prepared to hear the voice of those in opposition and respond with integrity.

Trontastic.

In fact after that little stunt he was forced to (sort of) apologize, what with him being a big proponent of “ethics” in his field.

Jeff, the thing that you have going for you (so far) is that nobody is paying you to push a point of view. If you lose that then you will just be another hired gun.

It’s the willingness to take your lumps by posting under your own name that is the key. You may be right or wrong in your opinions and even facts, but at least they are yours. This is one of the benefits of working in academia and it is one of the many modern-day tragedies that this independence has become damaged by those who take money from backers and then do their bidding.

This is true of many academic economists and political scientists, but has now spread to medical researchers and other areas of “pure” science.

If you want to get into a spat with critics that is your prerogative, that’s the benefit of owning your own (virtual) printing press.

You raise an important issue: protection. It’s impossible to protect everyone from the, um, trolls. But it is necessary to protect the children. My daughter was differently crushed when her very safe community of American Girl fans was shuttered by Mattel. Protection was expensive, or at least not sufficiently profitable.

Communities do need maintenance and policing. I learned the online version of Rudy Giuliani’s broken-glass doctrine: If you leave a can of spray paint by a blank wall, it will be used. But if you give the community the tools and support to police itself, it will, so long as its members value that community. Grownups can be expected to help do that. Kids should not have to. Stardoll, it appears, left the spray paint can out.

Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

Bible, 1 Corinthians xv. 33.

I use “assholes” generically. I have found that my prior wording, “Bozos,” does not cross borders. “Twit” isn’t right or strong enough.