Conservatives are usually pretty easy on bloggers, as the most important and influential blog swarms tend to be generated by conservative bloggers trying to right the wrongs of the leftist mainstream media (MSM).
That’s why I was taken aback by Kathleen Parker’s latest column, Lord of the Blogs, where she likens some bloggers to the marooned little (murderous) souls in Lord of the Flies.
That was way harsh, Kathleen.
She must have been burned recently, I thought, though I’m sure I’d have remembered reading about it. Whenever anyone, no matter their political persuasion, criticizes bloggers, I get defensive. It’s a natural reaction. I love blogging. I make my living blogging and helping other people blog, so I’m just a tad sensitive when I perceive anti-blogger sentiment. Parker writes:
There’s something frankly creepy about the explosion we now call the Blogosphere - the big-bang “electroniverse” where recently wired squatters set up new camps each day. As I write, the number of “blogs” (Web logs) and “bloggers” (those who blog) is estimated in the tens of millions worldwide.
Although I’ve been a blog fan since the beginning, and have written favorably about the value added to journalism and public knowledge thanks to the new “citizen journalist,” I’m also wary of power untempered by restraint and accountability.
Dropping the self-centered defensive pose for a moment, I realize she has a point. Blogs are a powerful new medium, and I believe blogging is catching on so fast because the power and freedom of expression it provides are intoxicating. It is truly an alternative to the dominant media, and ordinary people — non-journalists — can cajole, criticize and chastise MSM.
Quick example: the Washington Post wrote a story about embeded journalists, and according to milblogger Bill Roggio, one of the subjects of the story, they got it wrong. Big surprise, right? Well, Bill has a national platform from which to respond. Lucianne Goldberg, proprietor of the popular and nationally-recognized conservative news filter, Lucianne.com, linked to Bill’s response. Thousands of people, probably more than actually read the Post story, will read Bill’s corrections. (Read the transcript of his interview with Hugh Hewitt)
Back in the day, he’d have been relegated to a Letters to the Editor section, maybe, or a phone call to the reporter, which may or may not have been returned. With a link from Lucianne, Bill’s side of the story will get a lot of play. That’s power.
But unrestrained power coupled with little to no accountability is a dangerous thing. As a blogger who’s been the subject of nasty and false statements made by bloggers and in comment sections by anonymous cowards, I know what people are capable of saying when they get caught up in online anonymity. When you’re not man or woman enough to stand behind your words using your own name, high ideals like accountability and responsibility are mere afterthoughts.
This passage made me certain that for Parker, it’s personal:
Bloggers persist no matter their contributions or quality, though most would have little to occupy their time were the mainstream media to disappear tomorrow. Some bloggers do their own reporting, but most rely on mainstream reporters to do the heavy lifting. Some bloggers also offer superb commentary, but most babble, buzz and blurt like caffeinated adolescents competing for the Ritalin generation’s inevitable senior superlative: Most Obsessive-Compulsive.
Yes, we bloggers bounce off MSM, criticizing stories and looking for bias. Some bloggers are better writers and thinkers than others, so their commentary may be considered “superb.” But Parker says most bloggers just babble and blurt. I don’t read a lot of bloggers these days, but the ones I do read aren’t babblers and blurters.
Even so, they hold the same megaphone as the adults and enjoy perceived credibility owing to membership in the larger world of blog grown-ups. These effete and often clever baby “bloggies” are rich in time and toys, but bereft of adult supervision. Spoiled and undisciplined, they have grabbed the mike and seized the stage, a privilege granted not by years in the trenches, but by virtue of a three-pronged plug and the miracle of WiFi.
Ouch! Effete and clever baby bloggies? Who’s she talking about? She must be immersed in the blogosphere and quite familiar with a variety of blogs; otherwise, on what basis could she make such a statement unless she or someone she cares about was the focus of a vicious blog swarm? Curious.
The money quote:
Each time I wander into blogdom, I’m reminded of the savage children stranded on an island in William Golding’s “Lord of the Flies.” Without adult supervision, they organize themselves into rival tribes, learn to hunt and kill, and eventually become murderous barbarians in the absence of a civilizing structure.
I confess my ignorance of such bloggers. Anonymous, effete cowards, I know plenty, but likening them to murderous barbarians would be a stretch. I figure these folks have empty and unfulfilling lives to spend so much time reading my blog and creating new ones simply for the purpose of blogging about what I blog about. I take pity on them, in a way, because most aren’t clever enough to do real damage or even entertain. I think of them as gnats buzzing around my head or moths attracted to the light.
Read the rest of Parker’s column. It’s quite fascinating. The subtext is much more interesting than the text, and it’s got me wondering what happened to her and whether I’ve been, on occasion, one of those bloggers “untempered by restraint and accountability.” I don’t want to be.
Am I having an attack of conscience? 
She concludes:
I mean no disrespect to the many brilliant people out there - professors, lawyers, doctors, philosophers, scientists and other journalists who also happen to blog. Again, they know who they are. But we should beware and resist the rest of the ego-gratifying rabble who contribute only snark, sass and destruction.
I am nowhere near brilliant, but I’ve been known to write a really good post now and then. I’ve been guilty of a little ego-gratifying rabble and snarkiness, but I’d never trash another blogger. I guess I have an unwritten code of ethics which strongly discourages unfair and unnecessary attacks on fellow bloggers and encourages me to focus on public figures such as politicians (who have the power to make laws curtailing my freedom and to raise my taxes), celebrities, and organization presidents, for example.
It’s too bad other bloggers don’t have similar ethics, and it’s too bad Parker had to write such a column. I don’t blame her; I blame the people who write whatever they want without regard for truth or civility.
Do you know the kind of bloggers Parker describes? Who are they?
Related: Captain’s Quarters…
(Image by Castle Rock Entertainment)
Update: During my presentation for a seminar called “Crash Course on Blogging,” I quoted a few stats from “Behaviors of the Blogosphere” by comScore Media. Download the PDF copy. A few highlights:
- 50 million U.S. Internet users visited blog sites in the first quarter of 2005, roughly 30 percent of all U.S. Internet users and 1 in 6 of the total U.S. population
- Five hosting services for blogs each had more than 5 million unique visitors in that period, and four individual blogs had more than 1 million visitors each
- Of 400 of the biggest blogs observed, segmented by seven (nonexclusive) categories, political blogs were the most popular, followed by “hipster” lifestyle blogs, tech blogs and blogs authored by women
- Compared to the average Internet user, blog readers are significantly more likely to live in wealthier households, be younger and connect to the Web on high-speed connections
- Blog readers also visit nearly twice as many web pages as the Internet average, and they are much more likely to shop
Update II (12/30): Reply from Kathleen Parker sent today and posted with her permission:
A friend directed me to your webpage and I found your comments just about right. It seems to me we agree. I figured mentioning “philosophers” left plenty of space for good bloggers like you, who would recognize themselves (You’ve had a place on my Faves list for a while, btw). Otherwise, the bad ones - those mean-spirited members of the mobocracy - would reveal themselves. As well they have. If I used too broad a brush, I’m sorry. It’s never my intent to be wrong, after all. But I get smeared with the MSM all the time. Hey, I’m the one who’s been complaining about media bias the past 20 years - mostly alone, I might add. It’s a wonder I’ve survived in my own industry. I figured as often as I have praised blogs and eaten my own, I had earned the right to point out flaws in the blogosphere. Here’s to peace and civility in the new year.
All best,
Kathleen
I take issue with anonymous fire breathing bloggers. If what you have to say is worth your time to write it, then don’t be afraid to put your name on it. I immediately look to see if a person uses their name when I go to a new blog. I also look to see if they have a profile with any sustenance to it. I realize that much of this can easily be fabricated, but it’s not too hard to verify a few facts on a person if you really want to. As my profile states, I worked as a private investigator for a while. I also spent some time serving subpoenas and summons. I served hundreds of papers per month at one point. Locating people who want to hide is not that difficult. Verifying simple facts in this age of wired resources is even easier today than it was over ten years ago when I searched for people and facts for a living. Blogger who insists on being anonymous should expect a certain level of skepticism towards what they write. There are times when anonymity is useful or even entertaining. I believe that those instances are few and far between.
Comment by Hank Osborne — 12.28.05 @ 9:55 am
Ditto to Hank.
I LOVE putting my name on controversial stuff -
so the fools that hate what I say know who to hate for saying it.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 12.28.05 @ 10:12 am
What bugs me is that some more popular bloggers have no bio or About section. Why are they hiding?
I appreciate blogs, but all the discussion about the importance and relevance of them seems to be a kind of insecurity, as if [political] bloggers have to tell the world “We matter! See? We matter!” while they bounce off the MSM. There wouldn’t be much of a news base without the MSM.
I don’t think Patrick Henry and the other Revolutionary folks were going around with their pamphlets saying, “We matter! Pay attention to us! We matter! Forget about the British newspapers! Look at me! I published a pamphlet of protest! Isn’t that great? I’m so important!” Instead, they just printed their ideas and let them speak for themselves, and talked to the people to convince them to break from England.
Comment by mj — 12.28.05 @ 10:15 am
I don’t agree totally with the lack of accountability criticism. Where does the MSM have accountability? I called a radio station after the third time I heard the quote, “Ken Starr put Susan McDougall in jail for refusing to testify against Bill Clinton.” If that quote were true, this would be a scary country to live in. In reality Susan McDougall was put in jail by a Federal judge for refusing to testify to the truth of what she knew after being given immunity.
She only needed to tell the truth!
The radio station did correct the report for the next two “top of the hour” news reports but several days later I heard the incorrect version again. That is an example that comes to mind because I tried to do something about it. There are many others. I believe accountability is very important and a part of the Christian virtue of meekness. I don’t see it in the MSM.
Comment by Evon — 12.28.05 @ 10:34 am
My lazy way through the blogosphere is to click on the suggested reading and sites noted by LaShawn, Michelle, CQ, LGF, Tim Blair, Steyn, Instapundit, Mudville, etc.
I rely on these pros to pretty much separate the wheat from the chaff. I have way more to read that way than to go trolling for suckers and bottom feeders.
However, I would note that every time there has been a new level of open communication in the world, there has also been a back lash against those who “misuse” it.
I don’t know what has got Kathleen Parker’s shorts in a bunch, but comments about the rascals, malcontents and idiots who blog is just a lot of sneezing into the wind. Maybe there are unscrupulous bloggers who will attracts drooling villagers carrying torches and pitchforks. Hitler did it with radio. Papa Doc Duvalier did it with Voodoo, the KKK did it with bedsheets and fiery crosses; but you can not stop a dedicated fool. (Think Cindy Sheehan.)
Sorry, Ms. Parker for your angst. I hope you are not a fan of the UN proposal to grab the INTERNET so it can censor it.
Comment by Heliotrope — 12.28.05 @ 10:56 am
Ms. Parker gave up the ghost in this sentence.
“I mean no disrespect to the many brilliant people out there - professors, lawyers, doctors, philosophers, scientists and other journalists who also happen to blog. Again, they know who they are.”
Translated, if you are in my peer group or social circle, I do not want to offend you. But those bloggers who are not of the cafe society, and most likely live in (aghast) fly over country, go away. You are not worthy of my time.
Unfortunately, Ms. Parker has to live with her myopia and will be unable to see the talent that lies across this great country.
Comment by Tom — 12.28.05 @ 11:40 am
I think that the MSM is jealous and resentful of bloggers, because journalists have become an isolated elite clique who are accustomed to handing down the final word on events, particularly political stuff.
There are many good reporters out there who try to be balanced with such issues, but the balance doesn’t make it past the elite isolated editors. Their worldview cannot be altered by anyone, because their perceived mission is to trumpet that worldview.
Slogans like “Opening eyes, opening minds” of the NYT-Discovery channel reveal the attitude of a benighted public desperately in need of enlightenment. Guess who is going to enlighten us, and to what purpose?
It’s clear to me most news people see the U.S. as culturally inferior to almost anywhere else, especially the EU. They seem to believe deeply that America has what it takes to be truly great, if only their own wisdom were consulted in governance. Funny how no journalists run for office, where their policy ideas are up for real scrutiny.
There was a great quote from Gen. R.E. Lee in a newspaper from the Civil War era where he invited the newspapermen who could obviously run a war better than he to swap places with him, and he sarcastically worried about if he could report as well as the repoters thought they could command.
I wish I could remember the quote!
Comment by brian — 12.28.05 @ 11:49 am
The real problem the MSM has is that I do not need them to think for me. I can evaluate articles, evidence and punditry and come up with my own opinion. I DO NOT NEED A GATEKEEPER!!
Comment by Richard Cook — 12.28.05 @ 11:51 am
Right on Richard. That’s what I meant by elite. These people not only have determined you and I need a gatekeeper, but that they are entitled to the gatekeeping authority based on how their more evolved intellect and sense of compassion rise above the uneducated masses(that means red states).
I think of it like the Maginot Line. They are self appointed gatekeepers of information, but the public now has the means to blitzkreig around the gate and attack in the rear, but their perceptions will not adapt to the “new normal” as Shep Smith says.
I’ll swing the Cluebat at them once: It’s not 1968 anymore!!
Comment by brian — 12.28.05 @ 12:28 pm
Oh, by the way, this is the first time I have commented here so an official hello to LaShawn and kudos for an interesting and refreshing blog. You can thank the honorable Hugh Hewitt for this new reader and, just like Ah-nold I’ll be bahck!
Comment by brian — 12.28.05 @ 12:35 pm
La Shawn
Although I suspect I’m more adventuresome than Heliotrope, I too take cues from you as I forage through the Blogosphere. However, as a relative newcomer to this surreal universe, I am loath to criticize other bloggers or blogging standards and protocol (to the extent they exist).
Nonetheless, I think we are all well-served when an influential voice like Parker’s compels us to examine what value our (often reflexive and all too perfunctory) blogging contributes to “journalism†or, indeed, to the amorphous arena of public discourse.
I’ve been blogging since February 2004 and did not appreciate the importance of a proper bio until “uber geek blogger†Ken Yarmosh admonished me in this regard a few weeks ago. And, I am now in the process of updating my profile (complete with photo) out of a new sense of respect for my few readers and to take public ownership of and responsibility for the contents of my blog.
On second thought, I am constrained to suggest that your “attack of conscience†is probably more in defense of some of your high profile peers than in your own self-defense. I read your blog religiously because your posts are invariably thoughtful and comprehensive; not just a series of links to “real journalistsâ€. Indeed, I am often disappointed by other big names in the Blogosphere who have become little more than Drudge-lite news facilitators with blogs that seem designed more to generate ad revenues than to express a personal or original thought about anything!
Comment by anthony — 12.28.05 @ 12:38 pm
LaShawn Barber has a great post up about bloggers and blogging. Most of it, I agree with, and you should read it if you’re at interested in the tug of war between old and new media.
Pingback by Climbing Mount Nebo » On Blogging Anonymously… — 12.28.05 @ 12:44 pm
It seems to me that Ms. Parker is not distinguishing between a blog and the comment section of a blog where most of the nonsense takes place.
Comment by walt — 12.28.05 @ 1:05 pm
I really don’t understand her point. I read a log of blogs (don’t blog myself), and those that are pointless or don’t convey accurate and useful information don’t get revisited.
She must spend a lot of time reading and visiting worthless blogs to be so emotionally driven on the topic. I suggest more selective viewing and a lower threshold for dribble will solve a lot of her problem.
Comment by Delta Dave — 12.28.05 @ 1:07 pm
Sounds to me like someone yelling at the country club about the scruffy rabble now being let in. How dare the “little people” have opinions about her?
Comment by Kevin — 12.28.05 @ 1:09 pm
Kathleen’s piece is just another sign of the death of old media.
As far as “putting your name on it” goes. Folks like La Shawn and some others know who I am and knew of me even before I started blogging.
I was running public sites online before the word “blog” existed. So for now I’m taking a break from my name being on everything and promoting my ideas.
I will let those who don’t know me know who I am in time. Folks who kept up with one of my old sites (the first one I started and sold this year) already know who I am. So my best online friends all know me and have for years.
I really wanted to promote the fact that Conservative does not mean Republican. So for now I use the IC title.
I’ve been running sites for so long I had to try something different. But it does not mean I’m trying to keep it that way.
Just because someone puts there name on a post does not mean anyone really “knows” them. People who put there name in the comments here really are still fairly anonymous to most of the world. Because most people could care less about doing some PI work just to learn more. And just because someone says their name is X does not mean it is true.
Comment by Independent Conservative — 12.28.05 @ 1:17 pm
The blogger at Climbing Mount Nebo makes a good point. Someone should not have to exclude themselves from the forum of ideas simply because speaking up might cause them to lose their job.
Any of us that have used our name online are already in a position where we feel we can remain gainfully employed and speak our minds. But not everyone is in the same position at this moment.
I get into so many heated debates with everyone I know (if they are not Conservative) that they already know where I stand on most everything
.
Comment by Independent Conservative — 12.28.05 @ 1:32 pm
“…journalists have become an isolated elite clique who are accustomed to handing down the final word on events, particularly political stuff.”
Agreed! I remember hearing a snob “columnist” who writes for one of the biggest papers in the U.S. say that they would “never” have a blog. Wow, that really makes me want to read their column! I never read it and gladly go to blogs instead.
Comment by mj — 12.28.05 @ 2:10 pm
The print “old media” is dying because of the availablity of 24-7-365 news on cable. Now, over-the-air stations start showing news around 5:00 AM to about 9:AM, at 12PM, then from about 4:30PM to 7:00 PM, then at 10PM (Fox), and 11PM.
Print media can’t compete with that.
But if bloggers want to keep pointing to their affect on the “old media”, fine, but most people on the net don’t visit blogs. A few months ago, Rush Limbaugh said there was a study that showed only 1% of net users go to blogs.
Comment by DarkStar — 12.28.05 @ 2:33 pm
Mark in Mexico responds to Kathleen Parker
Ms. Parker has written a scathing attack on the Blogosphere and bloggers such as, ahem, yours truly. Mark in Mexico takes this opportunity to retort. Ms. Parker charges that blogs are:
Trackback by Mark in Mexico — 12.28.05 @ 2:56 pm
I am inclined to agree with those who have suggested that Ms. Parker’s comments sounded a bit elitist. I have also found the blogs, from their heights to their depths, to be a refreshing development, and tend to view them from a different perspective, and I think it’s a very American thing (in the best sense). Those who haven’t the opportunity to otherwise be heard by an extended audience on an extended basis can now do so, free from the constraints of censorship or restrictions. Anyone who approaches the blogs ought to do so with the same caution that one approaches any media expression (print, electronic, etc.) - that is, with their mind in gear. That, I think, is the necessary safeguard. Much of what passes for responsible, professional ‘journalism’ today is no worse than anything I’ve seen in the blogging community. I much prefer a world in which bloggers (and others who choose to communicate) can do so unfettered by contempt generated by snobbery. And this is from an unashamedly conservative black (or Africa-American, if it so pleases) man.
Comment by Armand La Bes — 12.28.05 @ 3:04 pm
Oh sweet LaShawn…
I”m at a loss to name bloggers fitting Kathleen’s description. It could be because I have my short list of blogs I read daily that occasionally link me into some other blogs that I simply visit to read that targeted link.
Just not getting out there enough you see…to much inbreeding of closeted weakness into my world view. I know I sound like a liberal…but really I’m not.
I toyed with having my own blog for awhile, but could not discover an empowering direction sufficient to fuel my efforts..but particularly good for the ego since I didn’t turn on the the comments…
And, I simply don’t have much time to blog after reading through my shorty blog list. I have more than blogs in my life, afterall…well that’s my claim and my main reason for a dsl line.
So, yes, maybe I’m trapped in a bubble of my own making and just don’t know any better than sweet LaShawn…but I will keep my eyes open in case serendipity pops a blog into my bubble, then toss it your way love. RS
Comment by Rodger S. — 12.28.05 @ 3:09 pm
I’m with Delta Dave — the kinds of blogs Ms. Parker described don’t get read very much as far as I can tell. Adolescent thinkers will read adolescent blogs. Thus it was ever so. Besides, it’s not the numbers of blogs out there — it’s the hits that are notable.
So what does she want to do about it? Close them down? Rate them? Censor them?
I am surprised at Ms. Parker. Free speech means people can make idiots out of themselves and foam at the figurative mouth all they want. Free speech includes blogs and her right to criticize them. She does paint with a bit of an elitist brush though, doesn’t she? Some of my favorites are written by soldiers, and Iraqi or 2, and even a writer who embeds …
Blogs are probably the most significant change in communications and information exchange since the invention of the radio. It’s not enough to be turned off by crooked (more than slanted!) reporting by the MSM — I can find several other positions and a lot more hard info by going through the reputable blogs. (How many of us knew right off that the fake and lying Bush military papers were generated in WORD?)
Besides — “comment-ers” and other bloggers seem to do a fair job of correcting. I see more back and forth between blogs correcting each other than I do between newspapers or the video media!
Comment by JA Lyons — 12.28.05 @ 3:17 pm
I’m not sure what prompted Parker to write this column, but I’m in the “mainstream media” (and met La Shawn at BlogNashville in May). I would only remark that many of the commenters display as little understanding of the MSM as her comments do about bloggers — overarching generalizations based on scanty and mostly anecdotal evidence. Neither journalists nor bloggers constitute a monolithic culture.
Comment by linda seebach — 12.28.05 @ 3:29 pm
“I would only remark that many of the commenters display as little understanding of the MSM as her comments do about bloggers — overarching generalizations based on scanty and mostly anecdotal evidence.” Linda Seeback
I would add that it’s an intellectually lazy habit to complain about commenters without providing an example(s) that buttresses your point.
I will let you in on a secret. It’s not true that everyone’s opinion is equal. Nor is it true that because you are supposedly in the MSM you simply don’t have to explain yourself. RS
Comment by Rodger S. — 12.28.05 @ 4:23 pm
Tom, in comment 6 above, hit it squarely. The MSM bubble in which Kathleen Parker (whom I enjoy greatly) writes is no different from the bubble from which Evan Thomas wrote his Newsweek piece, titled ‘Bush In The Bubble’, with hilarious, albeit unintentional, irony. I may be wrong, but I’m betting that Kathleen Parker doesn’t socialize with too many salesmen, steamfitters, housewives, or cops. Just because she has had the good fortune to have her talents ‘discovered’ by a MSM which rewards it, does not mean that the commentary offered by bloggers who are not lawyers, philosophers (whatever that is supposed to mean), doctors, etc. is any less interesting. Indeed, seeing the quality of ‘professorship’ extant today, the fewer that blog the better. As for ‘accountability’, bloggers are beholden to the very same people to whom she is; their readers. Blog badly, lose hits. Write bad columns, lose readership (or, in the case of Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman, get your very own bubble-within-a-bubble). A shame that one who writes with such clarity and cleverness suffers from the same affliction as do her peers on the left.
Comment by Bob C — 12.28.05 @ 4:41 pm
Excuse Us, Whilst We Babble (And Please Pass The Ritalin)
There’s something frankly creepy about the explosion we now call the Blogosphere - the big-bang “electroniverse” where recently wired squatters set up new camps each day. As I write, the number of “blogs” (Web logs) and &…
Trackback by California Conservative — 12.28.05 @ 4:46 pm
Malkin and Hewitt seem to be MSM people who blend the blog and non-blog worlds quite well.
Comment by mj — 12.28.05 @ 4:49 pm
Very thought provoking. To me, her article points to the the reality that “blogging” is much more of a social expression/explosion than an alternative to the Mainstream Media. I think she would prefer it to be encapsulated into a professional realm, with a particular purpose and look a particular way.
It would be much easier.
Technorati reported in July that 80,000 blogs are created daily. I guarentee very few of them want to run with Instapundit. The reasons for their development, purpose and ethics are as varied as the the moods of these millions and millions of people who now comprise our sphere.
It seems that the term “blogging” has come to mean one thing among the alpha blogs and the reality of the whole sphere is a lot more gritty, changeable and dynamic. To me blogging isn’t a specific verb only applicable to the one purpose of benefitting the masses with culturally relevant punditry and information. Blogging is a tool of expression for any issue … any motivation.
I do think that if blogging is a tool of expression and not confined by one purpose, you will have the inferred “tribalism” in the sphere. It’s human nature. I would be interested in developing an ethical position statement that applies to most blogs but not confined to blogs that fit a particular profile.
I have no doubt that structure and a clearly defined code of ethics will start popping up everywhere in the sphere. It’s inevitable. While “Lord of the Blogs” is an unfortunate characterization, I think Parker is making a limited but valid observation.
Comment by Randy — 12.28.05 @ 4:50 pm
I’m with Delta Dave — the kinds of blogs Ms. Parker described don’t get read very much as far as I can tell.
How do you know?
Better yet, how does anyone really know how influencial blogs are or are not?
Rush Limbaugh said that blogs are read by about 2% of ‘net surfers. IF THAT IS ACCURATE, what does that say about blog influence?
Comment by DarkStar — 12.28.05 @ 4:55 pm
Excellent post and comments… so I’ve changed my visible counterfeit blog name, Pondering Dilettante, to my real one. I’m now wondering if I’ll speak differently? Naw - I was pretty tame before.
Comment by James Ament — 12.28.05 @ 5:58 pm
If the MSM disappeared tomorrow morning someone would reinvent it that afternoon. Bloggers and the public would not be consulted for advice.
Comment by SickAndTired — 12.28.05 @ 6:14 pm
From the article: “Schadenfreude - pleasure in others’ misfortunes - has become the new barbarity on an island called Blog. When someone trips, whether Dan Rather or Eason Jordan or Judith Miller, bloggers are the bloodthirsty masses slavering for a public flogging. Incivility is their weapon and humanity their victim.”
I think Rodger S. got it: she’s confusing bloggers and their commenters. That’s where you’ll see the more extreme reactions she’s referring to (and I’ve contributed to that occasionally). Is it possible her column was edited and the confusion introduced by the editor? (Civil, ain’t I?)
Comment by Jim C. — 12.28.05 @ 6:55 pm
Blogs are influential in my life, just like talk radio was when I started listening to it back in the late 90’s. I’m sure the effects of blogs will multiply the more people move away from traditional media outlets.
Comment by mj — 12.28.05 @ 8:33 pm
The bloggers that Kathleen seems to be disturbed about already have analogs in existing media sources. Think about the Inquirer and rags of its ilk. There are also publications by evil groups like the KKK, and lets not forget AL Jazeera etc. etc. Her concerns about accountability may indeed be well founded, but I see no signs of accountability in the MSM. What I do see is the MSM hiding behind the first amendment when they do wrong. I don’t object to the first amendment or their overall use of it, but it wasn’t meant to be used as a shield for intentionally disreputable and destructive acts.
I suspect that the same free market forces that mold all consumer goods are going to winnow the ranks of bloggers over time. Just as the MSM itself is currently suffering from competition in the form of the blogsphere. Their individual content, as well as the fact that information is so easy to verify or debunk using the internet, will reinforce the good blogs and weaken the “bad”. If nobody reads a blog because its content is offensive, inane or downright illiterate then where’s the harm in its presence. Just like the town criers of old, if you don’t like what they’re saying all you have to do is walk out of earshot.
Comment by Dan — 12.28.05 @ 11:26 pm
The idea for this post was inspired by La Shawn.
Pingback by Everyday Thoughts Collected — 12.29.05 @ 12:38 am
The Knucklehead of the Day award
Today’s winner is syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker.
Trackback by The Florida Masochist — 12.29.05 @ 7:29 am
Why do I blog???
Randy started it… well, no, in fact, LaShawn wrote the article, which was a great article.. and then Randy commented… which lead to my post this morning. As I consider myself a true “baby blogger,” I usually comment on other bl…
Trackback by odds and ends — 12.29.05 @ 7:38 am
One thing to consider about what Ms. Parker wrote is that as a syndicated columnist, her work appears in newspapers across the country. Its critical to remember that about 3/4 of Americans don’t even know what a blog is. So, the article attacking bloggers will really hurt with the people who just simply don’t get this thing to start with.
Comment by Adam Graham — 12.29.05 @ 9:23 am
Barbarians at the Blog
A syndicated columnist today lashed out at blogs in her latest column provoking a backlash in the growing medium.
That is what’s called a summary lead. My ability to write one proves I’m a journalist and thus worthy to have a blog, according to Ka…
Trackback by Adam's Blog — 12.29.05 @ 9:24 am
Baby Bloggies?
Please be sure to read the post below. I hate to push it down the page, but this was too important not to post.
Florida Masochist blogged this morning about an article by syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker. You can read it here.
In short, I thi…
Trackback by Elephant in my Coffee — 12.29.05 @ 9:57 am
Over at the Cave of the Curmudgeon, James links to a post by LaShawn Barber discussing the power of blogs. James is specifically interested in this quote of LaShawn’s about anonymous comments and bloggers: But unrestrained power coupled with little to no accountability is a dangerous thing. As a blogger who’s been the subject of nasty and false statements made by bloggers and in comment sections by anonymous cowards, I know what people are capable of saying when they get caught up in online anonymity. When you’re not man or woman enough to stand behind your words using your own name, high ideals like accountability and responsibility are mere afterthoughts.
Pingback by The Unrepentant Individual » Anonymity and Pseudonymity — 12.29.05 @ 11:31 am
Spears won’t kill Piggy’s traffic!
La Shawn Barber’s observations about blogger responsibility are well worth reading: ….[U]nrestrained power coupled with little to no accountability is a dangerous thing. As a blogger who’s been the subject of nasty and false statements made by blogg…
Trackback by Classical Values — 12.29.05 @ 12:02 pm
I read very few blogs (being a busy mom myself), though during the election cycle I ranged further afield. I regularly read National Review’s The Corner, Hugh Hewitt, Lileks, LaShawn, and Michelle Malkin (less frequently). Sometimes I follow links, if I have time. None of the blogs I read fit Ms. Parker’s description. The discourse is well-reasoned and the bloggers informed and intelligent.
Given that there are so many blogs and so little time, it’s inevitable that the cream will rise to the top and garner the highest number of readers.
Who has time to waste on juvenile stuff? Why bother ranting about it?
I blog, but mostly to my own little circle of family and friends (at homeschoolblogger.com). It’s a nice, supportive homeschooling community where I can think out loud and get encouragement, advice, or pats on the back occasionally. I find it fulfilling. Posting pictures of my children or our daily accomplishments helps me get a better perspective on the significance of what I do and increases my appreciation and gratitude for the gifts in my life. I do “get political” on occasion, but it’s more from a philosophical perspective, not in the form of personal attack.
I don’t fall neatly into her circle of elites and have never worked as a professional (unless you count motherhood among the professions), although I was educated to be a journalist and have a natural interest in policy issues.
So, I too fall well outside the boundary lines of what Ms. Parker was talking about. I’m sure there are many, many other small-time bloggers like me who do it for the sheer fun of talking about interesting stuff that they love. I really can’t figure out who or what she’s talking about.
Comment by Susannah — 12.29.05 @ 12:41 pm
Well, LaShawn, I *do* know some bloggers who fit Parker’s “snark, sass, and destroy” profile: Kos, Atrios, Corn, Aravosis..
My, my, my. They’d all be left-wing bloggers, wouldn’t they?
Comment by doc — 12.29.05 @ 1:38 pm
To Rodger S:
The Rocky Mountain News is a large regional newspaper (slightly less than 600,000 weekend print circulation, and an active Web development team). For people in the industry, that’s mainstream. We are in the same industry, but not in the same business, as many other media outlets – broadcast news, cable channels, commercial/public/talk/satellite radio, wire services, or, in print, national newspapers, suburban weeklies and free alternative papers. These are all different products, with different though often overlapping customers, and different business plans. It is intellectually lazy to lump them all together under the shorthand “MSM†if you’re really thinking about CBS News/CNN/The New York Times/The Washington Post.
But not, I would think, to assume that people reading my comment have also read the preceding ones, and would not need to have the examples pointed out to them. And I didn’t want to single out individual posters for criticism. But since you insist, here are a few:
“I think that the MSM is jealous and resentful of bloggers, because journalists have become an isolated elite clique who are accustomed to handing down the final word on events, particularly political stuff.
“There are many good reporters out there who try to be balanced with such issues, but the balance doesn’t make it past the elite isolated editors. Their worldview cannot be altered by anyone, because their perceived mission is to trumpet that worldview.â€
>>> Somewhat more than 200 people work here, and probably no more than 10 of them write about politics. Maybe some of them resent bloggers, but I have never heard anyone say so. None that I know of thinks what they write in the paper is the “final word.†Even I don’t think that, and I write editorials, which are opinionated on purpose. And the idea that reporters try to be balanced but editors take the balance out? I’m sure it happens, but the opposite direction is much more common.
Editors are isolated? How would this person know that? And how could it be established, even were it true?
“It’s clear to me most news people see the U.S. as culturally inferior to almost anywhere else, especially the EU. They seem to believe deeply that America has what it takes to be truly great, if only their own wisdom were consulted in governance.â€
>>> Data? “Most†implies data, not anecdotes.
“These people not only have determined you and I need a gatekeeper, but that they are entitled to the gatekeeping authority based on how their more evolved intellect and sense of compassion rise above the uneducated masses(that means red states).â€
>>> “Gatekeeping†occurs because the size of the newshole (or the length of the broadcast) is limited. It’s not anything news people believe they are entitled to, it’s just a consequence of finite resources. And as for the supposed reason, so snarkily expressed, has this person any evidence? Again, not just anecdotes.
The print “old media†is dying because of the availablity of 24-7-365 news on cable. Now, over-the-air stations start showing news around 5:00 AM to about 9:AM, at 12PM, then from about 4:30PM to 7:00 PM, then at 10PM (Fox), and 11PM.
“Print media can’t compete with that.â€
>>> There’s some truth to that, but only to the extent that people buy print newspapers for the kind of news they can get from cable, broadcast and the Web. We know that’s not true. Our franchise is local, even hyperlocal, and most of what we print is available on the Web only because we put it there.
Sorry for such a long post.
Comment by linda seebach — 12.29.05 @ 3:10 pm
Kathleen Parker seems to have a bee up her butt about bloggers. I frankly don’t care, but a few bloggers have written on it, including DJ Drummond and LaShawnÃ
Pingback by The Anchoress — 12.29.05 @ 3:17 pm
“…power untempered by restraint and accountability…” orrrrrrr “democracy.”
Hmmm. Maybe its a thin line from the 1st ammendment to mob mentality.
Comment by TheIdleReceptionist — 12.29.05 @ 4:31 pm
On the other hand doc, Michael Savage and Fred Phelps probably fit Parker’s characterizations on the other wing.
Comment by SickAndTired — 12.29.05 @ 6:16 pm
“I’m also wary of power untempered by restraint and accountability. ”
What, you mean like how the MSM has been until most recently? Unaccountable and unrestrainted? Noticed it didnt bother folks when the shoe’s on the other foot…..
Comment by carmen — 12.29.05 @ 8:15 pm
Kathleen Parker is better known as the woman who took a bold and controversial stand against child molestation in her column, “Adult - child relationships are wrong — always.”
Comment by WC Varones — 12.29.05 @ 9:17 pm
Re Parker’s attacks on blogging, we all know the blogsphere, like everything else, has its share of blowhards, fools, shysters and dunces. The criticisms Parker levels can be said of numerous media formats BEFORE the blogosphere developed. Anyone remember UseNet? What about bulletin boards, personal websites at Geocities, Tripod etc and “classical” media like print magazines and newsletters. Methinks Parker is miffed for some valid reasons, but it could be she is also upset because her ideas are being subjected to wide scrutiny, and inconsistencies, inaccuracies and lapses of logic are being pointed out. She can no longer hide behind her column and ignore emails sent questioning what she has written. Naturally the rabblerousers and professional agitators will flood the zone, rather than more thoughtful analyses, so I’ll agree with Parker on that part of her complaint.
Also another reason Parker may be miffed is because the blogsphere is a democratic leveler and fact verifier of sorts when used in its best sense. Far from the MSM obsessing over the quality of its product as Parker asserts, the sordid Rathergate and Jayson Blair episodes, and the even more sordid and inaccurate reporting on Hurricane Katrina, shows that Parker is engaging in wishful thinking.
The blogosphere means that the NY Times, CNN and others at once Olympian levels can no longer get away with it unchallenged. Anyone with a computer and web access and fingers with sufficient strength to type Google.com can take on arrogant media dictators and arrogant experts, and show their theories and activities to be false or dubious.
That may be what rankles many blog critics- that “guys in pajamas”, the despised “little people” as Leona Helmsley infamously put it, can make the high and mighty look stupid, not by simple polemical raving and ranting, but by measuring the high and mighty against widely available empirical evidence.
As regards anonymous commentary, I see nothing wrong with it per se, nor do I see how it is “cowardly” to not leave an email address. There are valid reasons for anonymity, ranging from privacy concerns, to fears of retaliation. National Review had an article a few months back about an adjunct professor who dared to post some “incorrect thoughts” in an online format. The college administration came down on him like a ton of bricks and harassed him out of his job. He is now in court against them for wrongful dismissal, with all the time and expense that entails. The same circumstances face people working for employers engaging in shoddy, unethical or illegal practices. It is easy for those who do not have to face such realities to talk about cowardice.
Where anonymous commentary goes wrong is with deliberate slander, vicious personal attacks against blog owners or other posters, and deliberatively disruptive and/or spamming tactics. Measures can be taken against such. The fact is that people can fake profiles and email addresses very easily. Site owners control abuse mostly by IP address not email. Does leaving a bogus email address versus an anonymous posting make people less “cowardly”? That is dubious. There is a valid place and valid circumstances for privacy and anonymity online.
Comment by Enrique Cardova — 12.29.05 @ 10:37 pm
The lady sounds like a buggy maker sounded around 1910. She is obsolete but think it is those darn car makers who are out of line.
Comment by hunter — 12.29.05 @ 11:11 pm
I have a little bit more charitable view of Ms. Parker’s comments - I think she wanted to criticize the bad apples of the blogosphere, but wrongly identifies them as the major part of it.
Anyone trying to characterize the blogosphere as a whole takes on an impossible task.
Once you get beyond mechanical descriptions of what blogs are, and how they work, the incredible variety in terms of purpose, quality, and viewpoints in the blogosphere confounds nearly any attempt to make a meaningful general statement about it.
Ms. Parker was being critical of some parts of this environment, and was clumsy in her expression of that criticism. I hope the extensive reaction to her column will provide her with a more complete and considered view of blogging.
Comment by Parker — 12.30.05 @ 9:43 am
BTW, it’s just coincidental that my first name is the same as her last name…
Comment by Parker — 12.30.05 @ 10:06 am
Say my name
Eric cites LaShawn Barber, who in turn is reacting to
Trackback by The White Peril — 12.30.05 @ 10:26 am
Good Blogging is Hard
I was thinking about what this (my) blog will become and what do I want to post when I read LaShawn Barber’s comments on Kathleen Parker’s column entitled “Lord of the Blogs.”
Can I avoid being what Ms. Parker describes? I suppose by linking to …
Trackback by Fire & Hammer — 12.30.05 @ 5:38 pm
Kathleen Parker On Blogs, Then And Now
Columnist Kathleen Parker triggered another round of MSM animosity in the blogosphere this week with a blog-bashing piece titled “Lord Of The Blogs.” While the article offered some pointed criticisms that no honest blogger could fairly refute, its ov…
Trackback by Beltway Blogroll — 12.31.05 @ 12:44 pm
For those of you who don’t know Kathleen Parker, she is a gifted, bright, conservative syndicated columnist in many US newspapers. Her column is also bi-weekly in Townhall. She is recognized in defending family values, marriage, raising children with fathers and mothers, and other conservative issues. So don’t bash her without knowing her. Her column today is in defense of President Bush and the NSA leak probe. Read it in Townhall.com.
She raises a good point: without facts or links, bloggers are simply spreading rumors and attacking. I do not know or read blogs that are like this, but there are some in both the conservative and liberal blogger reads.
If bloggers want the same recognition as the MSM they will need to be above the rest and report the facts.
Don’t be like the sensitive Democrats who think they cannot be criticized—ever. There is always a rotten apple in every crowd, so rise above them and blog honestly and with standards.
Comment by Lindsay — 12.31.05 @ 1:08 pm
Actually, a Lucianne link, while great, doesn’t translate into “hundreds of thousands” of visits. I’ve had two, including one the day before and part of the same day as Roggio’s, and got slightly over 5000 visits as a result. That’s terrific but less than I got from an Eschaton link to my piece on Parker’s column.
Comment by James Joyner — 12.31.05 @ 1:38 pm
Lord of the Blogs
Kathleen Parker thinks the world is going to Hell in a handbasket because of “bloggies” who are “the less visible, insidious enemies of decency, humanity and civility – the angry offspring of narcissism’s quickie marriage…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway — 12.31.05 @ 1:41 pm
You’re quite right, James. I’ve had three Lucianne links. I’m including other bloggers who linked to Bill as a result of the Lucianne link (high traffic bloggers), as well as readers who’ve passed his post on to others.
Comment by La Shawn — 12.31.05 @ 2:55 pm
2005 IN REVIEW: THE WAR ON BLOGS
To the dismay of the MSM, the blogosphere didn’t go away in 2005. Here are some of the more memorable moments in the clash of the bloggers vs. MSM…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 12.31.05 @ 8:33 pm
‘I take pity on them, in a way, because most aren’t clever enough to do real damage or even entertain. I think of them as gnats buzzing around my head or moths attracted to the light.’
I don’t know about feeling guilty about blogging without restraint, but I do think that’s a pretty low view to have of fellow human beings! (speaking as one who has often upbraided himself for gnatizing my fellows- though I’m myself just a poor worm most of the time)
[If you saw the nasty things these “fellow human beings” wrote about me, I’m certain your assessment would change. - Admin]
I blog myself, but I think that one of the factors that should be borne in mind is that many people blog while remaining ambivalent about it. It just happens to be the technology that’s there. I’ve no doubt I’d have attended a few more public meetings and interacted with a few newspapers’ letter page facilities had the internet not been around. I’ve sent emails in a similar vein online. It’s just that the pool of debate offered by the blogosphere is so tempting, and represents a natural continuum of other online communications. Why blog? becomes Why not blog?
I find Kathleen Parker’s argument like that of a Victorian lady who couldn’t appreciate why the plebs wanted their own little gardens when there was no way they were ever going to be fully presentable to the broader society 365 days a year with servants offering drinks on the lawn. I suppose I just took to heart the old Voltaire quote:
‘Let us cultivate our garden’ “Il faut cultiver notre jardin.”
I think that in a blog one minds ones own business in a public way. There is no doubt that our interests lie ‘out there’ where the newspapers and the pundits cavort; yet not many are cut out to join that dance directly, and in some ways the media circus just got out of hand and blogs are the natural antidote.
There- proof that I need to ramble and it’s a good job there’s plenty of space out there on the blogosphere.
Comment by Ed Thomas — 01.02.06 @ 5:54 am
find Kathleen Parker’s argument like that of a Victorian lady who couldn’t appreciate why the plebs wanted their own little gardens when there was no way they were ever going to be fully presentable to the broader society 365 days a year with servants offering drinks on the lawn.
Exactly Ed. That’s may be the nub of it. Darn it– why can’t these people stay in their place? Why do such peasants have to fill cyberspace with THEIR opinions and facts? Why can’t they (the pajama people) leave it to the best and brightest- the smart set? Even beyond that I think some of Parker’s writings themselves can be, and have been challenged effectively on both logical and factual grounds. It’s not simply a case of raving liberals or right wing blowhards attacking a thoughtful moderate/ conservative columnist. Some stuff that she has written on gay marriage for example, seems to patronizingly dismiss and caricature many opponents as somewhat dull, beknighted, slow-in-the-head Bible thumpers. It drew predictable and deserved flak, and Parker herself has openly clashed with other columnists on the Jewish World Review (www.jwr.com), website about this and a number of other issues. Perhaps realizing this tone of patronizing is a problem, she has been quick to mend fences and cover her flanks where LaShawn and others are concerned. But in the big picture, all this comes with the territory when writing in the public sphere. The above being said, Parker is a good, solid writer- a credit to the conservative cause.
Comment by Enrique Cardova — 01.02.06 @ 4:28 pm