1) Do you or someone you know spend 50 percent or more of your blogging time writing (negatively) about other bloggers?
2) Do you or someone you know begrudge another blogger’s “success”?
3) Are you or someone you know angry, perplexed, stumped — or the adjective of your choice — because certain bloggers seem to get linked frequently by the bigger bloggers, although you believe your posts are much more interesting and well-written?
4) Do you believe it is wrong, impractical, wasteful, comical, useful — or the adjective of your choice — to build a reputation by trying to tear down other bloggers?
Those are loaded questions, but that’s the slant of a project I’m working on. I’d love to hear your thoughts. If you don’t mind “confessing” publicly, you may do so in the comment section. I discourage blogger bashing, but feel free to name names to make your point.
To reply in confidence, e-mail me.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 26 comments }
I want to be bigger than Glenn Reynolds, how’s that for lofty goals??
I sent you an email… You will enjoy it I think…
I aspire to be the Christian “Instapundit.”
I understand that the entire blogosphere is largely unenthralled with my content, which is targeted towards what most consider a mainstream university, but I hate it when fellow students can write posts on par with an 8-year-old’s diary (e.g. “Me and [significant other] went to the mall and got ice cream today! Yay!”) and get more comments/attention than a graphics project on which I spent twelve man-hours.
a. No, I only read and respond to blogs that share my point of view - usually. That’s simply because it’s usually a waste of time to argue the opposition - they won’t reason and simply respond by calling names. Why subject myself to the aggravation?
b. no
c. no
d. yes
That help?
I get irritated with Christians who rip into other Christians without so much as a hint of charity or even an attempt to honestly portray their target’s point of view. It’s a big fat sin of omission, in my opinion, and exaggeration and hyperbole are cheap substitutes for honest, patient, and charitable exchange. No point is so important to make if our shared relationship in Christ is the first thing out the door.
However, I think shrill machismo and bully tactics attract larger audiences because they are often mistaken for bold commentary and strong argumentation. This is why I will never aspire to be a political blog (because of the temptation to become an amateur, loud-mouthed wonk) or ever care if my blog is well read.
I write all this without pointing fingers. I am not implicating anyone in particular, and I single out you, La Shawn, for your generally impeccable decorum. In general, however, I feel the mood among Christian bloggers is ill-fitted with the expectation of higher standards of Christians in any public forum.
I will answer the first 3 questions with the letters of his name.
1) D
2) E
3) LL
4) It’s wasteful, but freedom allows some of us to waste.
I say take it as free advertising
.
Damn, Independent Conservative beat me to the punch.
If people are interested in notoriety, then the blogosphere is a strange place to find it. It’s the Internet, people — everyone has a voice.
I blog because I enjoy writing and want to keep my skills sharp. I’m glad when people visit my site and spark conversations, but even if they didn’t I would still blog.
Frankly, I don’t understand the desire to be “linked to” that some people have. Why is it important? Why is it important to have “credit” for having a thought? Do we get a prize or something?
So, onto the questions:
(1) On my blog, I sometimes “make fun” of other bloggers. But I also make fun of journalists, celebrities, mainstream media pundits, etc. from time to time. Maybe it’s just me, but I find people who are full of themselves to be an endless source of amusement. However, I don’t do this an awful lot.
(2) Not at all.
(3) Not at all. I think the bloggers who get linked to frequently are usually deserving of it. They are interesting thinkers and writers.
(4) I think it can be. Someone who constantly demans other bloggers is usually pretty boring. On the other hand, if it is done with wit, it comes under the heading of political satire.
I blog for myself a lot. It feels good to get my thoughts down on ‘paper’. I don’t begrudge other people their success and I try to encourage as much as I can. I have a good sized emailing list for a blog my size. I don’t really wish for a famous blog because I think it’d be too much work and would interfere with my life in general.
Anyway, to answer your questions.
1. no
2. no
3. no
4. yes
I am only disgruntled that you never reply to my e-mails.
Maybe I should start a lashawn-hate blog.
Just kidding.
I have to agree with Matt Self. There is spirited discussion, thoughtful theology, good philosophy, and strong apologetics. Any form of character attack has no place in any of these things. The Bible says, “Warn a divisive man once, and then have nothing to do with him,…”
Considering that the stated standard of forgiveness of seventy times seven times, and the forgiveness God shows in the life of David (and adulterer and conspirator to murder), that makes divisiveness the most strictly dealt with sin.
You may disagree with my specific interpretation, but the fact that divisiveness is destructive to all who touch it is without a doubt.
LaShawn,
I think it perfectly normal and perhaps even expected to tear down blog-based ideology which one believes is harmful or deception. I don’t think blogdom should be exempt from reality in that it mirrors what people do. You asked about personally tearing down people as opposed to their ideology. To me, there’s a difference unless in the course of making the point, negative or what is perceived to be negative about a person is invoked. I disagree that character evaluations (I’ll say it like that) are completely off limits, because it is precisely wayward character that produces some of the more offensive things we see in print. To ignore that makes me wonder if people believe that character has moral obligations.
Blogging to me is not about a popularity contest. I blog about what I blog about for a particular reason. Of course, its always nice to see someone else take a peek at your writing and assign it a kudo or two, but speaking for myself I don’t float on that ego thing about being large and influential. If it came in the course of me doing what I do, mo powah, U know?
I do take occasional level a cannon barrel at the blog [exgaywatch] because I believe they intentionally disparage and denigrate conservatives, Christians cc leaders and just about anybody who doesn’t measure up the their idea of “tolerance and inclusion” for homosexuality. So yes I believe the goose and the gander ought to get slapped every now and then.
As for the “big boys” of blogdom, other than you and the wildly popular Independent Conservative :), I rarely read them or link because I think that they are fairly conceited so I don’t even waste my time. Some of them have agendas (probably like I do) and they just don’t bother to pay attention to “little guys” unless you can further their blog idol dreams.
That being said…all things in balance.
1) It’s not so much that I write negatively about other bloggers (they might, of course, disagree) as that I find that I’m–ahem!–correcting their thinking on a fairly regular basis.
2) Nah. I knew I was a blowhard when I got started. Figured that only my mom and my Sunday School class would read my blog. I was more than half right; my mom doesn’t read it.
3)I do think my posts are better written than much of what I see. I could build readership quickly by focusing more on a handful of issues, but my blogging is all over the place. Doesn’t bother me. I’d blog if no one read it.
4) If the objective of tearing down another blogger is to build reputation and readership, I’d say that’s wrong and a complete waste of time. It’s another matter entirely to engage in legitimate, reasoned criticism of someone else’s thinking in the hopes of influencing others to your point of view. I hope I live up to what I say in this regard!
6 & 7: LOL!
I aspire to be the kitten blender.
Because I love dogs too much to make smoothies of them. And my pit bull would likely kick my butt if I tried to put him in a blender.
But, I am too busy making a living to try to unseat Prof. Reynolds, and have yet to find a kitchen appliance that can handle the bones on my budget.
I aspire to be the Christian “Instapundit.â€
I aspire to the White LaShawn Barber without getting a sex change.
j/k.
1) No
2) Yes
3) No
4) Yes.
I’d use the term wasteful. Time you spend ripping another blogger as a matter of practice costs you time which can be used to build your own audience.
My point has always been to build my own audience, not stealing anyone else’s.
I haven’t started a blog yet, but I spend hours and hours each week getting the word out regarding articles posted by some of my favorite bloggers like Black Five, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt and ‘The Political Teen’ (and quite a few others including the one here by you La Shawn). My goal is to get as many people as possible to the sites where the author has opinions on issues similar to mine.
On two occasions that I know of for sure a link to a Michelle Malkin article was posted by Matt Drudge just minutes after I IM’ed it to him (the most recent being The Condi Rice eyes photo distortion).
No to all questions. To bash another blogger is to break the 8th commandment by bearing false witness against your neighbor. God names each one of us as His child and we are to protect each other’s good name. Pslam 109:2 tells us that only the wicked bash each others names. Proverbs 10:12 and 1 Cor. 13:5-7 tell us to do the best possible for our neighbor. As in “real” life, in the blogosphere we are neighbors: Republican, Democrat, Lutheran, Baptist, conservative, liberal…
1) I don’t personally know of anyone, but there are sites that exist solely for that purpose such as LGF Watch.
2) Jealous yes, begrudge, no.
3) Yes.
4) I’ll go with wasteful.
Is there a La Shawn Watch? For me that would be a great compliment, like having J F’ing Kerry denounce me on the Senate floor. I may get in a snide remark in a post about the KOS kids, such as I did here, but to devote a lot of my time putting down another blog just doesn’t seem to serve any pupose.
My answers:
1. No
2. Yes, sometimes
3. No
4. Yes
I do not know anyone personally who is blogging, so my answers are only related to me.
1) I spend a fraction of time writing negatively about other bloggers, but only for partisan political reasons, not for the fact that they are blogging. I mostly link to news items.
2) No
3) As my posts are probably the most insightful and thought out since the beginning of time, at least in my own mind, I wish I were linked to more often. But I understand why there are those that do get linked to a lot; these people know how to write and write well. For me, blogging and writing is a hobby, and that what makes it fun.
4) It is unethical to do this to a blogger who is not a politician. Even the KosKidz and other liberal bloggers agree with conservative bloggers in wanting the same laws ensuring freedom-of-speech rights without them being called in-kind campaign contributions (as part of the McCain-Feingold insanity), so it is in all of our interests to treat each other respectfully, even in disagreements.
However, blogs of politicians are fair game. They get paid to hear the issues of their constituents, and others. This is their job. They also need to be called on something if the politician attempts to mislead the public on an issue.
LaShawn,
I have a tiny audience, but I don’t really care that much. I’m not a tenured law professor, so I don’t have much free time to blog. I keep up as often as I can.
Besides, what’s the market for blogs by Anglican land surveyors?
I’ve heard a lot of handwringing recently about getting heard amid the din of millions of blogs. I think the best strategy–if there is one—is to build your own audience with your own writing and POV. I read blogs in an RSS reader and lately it’s gotten to be like drinking water from a firehose. Guess what? I’m still reading (and I mean reading instead of scanning or clicking) the same handful of blogs that I started reading back in 2002 with a few quality additions to my menu.
In order to be heard I think you have to go niche, niche, niche and in some ways, the smaller the niche the better off you are. Does the blogosphere really need another political or tech blog?
1) No good can possibly come out of tearing another person down. If I disagree with someone, I can say so in a gracious manner or not at all. Those are the options I give myself. If I consistently find a blogger lacks truth and wisdom, I stop reading their blog.
2) I think I secretly envy the success, but it also gives me something to aspire to. I try to figure out what makes them popular and either emulate or avoid their technique, depending. No matter how well I do something, there’s always someone who is more experienced or does it better than me. I see this as a learning opportunity.
3) I don’t fancy myself a great writer by any stretch. I do get perplexed at how some blogs attain large readerships, however. “Today we went to the mall and had ice cream. Yay!” (as someone mentioned earlier) But I can’t honestly say my writing is better. I do try to be helpful and encouraging in my blog. Much of what I blog about is for fun. If it wasn’t an enjoyable process, why would I do it?
4) Absolutely. Tearing another person down can never be a good thing. Building others up can, however. Especially if they have a “brag box” and put your compliment in there - permanent link, right? Flies and honey. I figure folks who need to trash other folks think it makes them look better, but quite the opposite is true - it just makes the trasher look more trashy.
Hope that helps.
I waffle back and forth on this sort of thing with myself. I’ve been blogging for almost two years now, and am dissapointed in the amount of attention I’ve gotten, despite some of my efforts. I definitely don’t tear down other bloggers, and think it very regrettable when others do.
I do however ask myself privately why blogger X has gotten more attention that me, especially when it has happened in a shorter period of time for them. Mostly it has forced me to re-examine what I write about, and the reasons why I blog. This introspection has then caused me to change a few things that I’ve done, or to refocus my efforts… but often times not much. Generally it has simply reminded me of the reasons why I blog. And while the attention for my efforts would be rewarding and certainly an ego boost, its not the ultimate goal for me.
I find it goes in cycles for me. I blog “purely for me” for quite some time. Then as things start to get old and maybe a little stale, thats when I get a little frustrated. Then I re-examine, and remember why I do this, and things get better for me, even if my traffic doesn’t.
It’s easy to understand the reaction. A person’s traffic is a reflection of how interesting he or she is to the reader.
Either a blogger is charismatic, well informed, erudite, funny, and provocative…
or not.
Some folks just can’t stand the thought that they are boring or that they are boring when compared to someone else in particular.
Contentment with one’s blogging can only come with humility and an awareness of one’s place in the scheme of things. Faith helps.
La Shawn, you have hit all these points out of the park!! Well done.
La Shawn,
I think my attitude has roots in grad school… I find it something between useless and spiritually bankrupt to comment negatively on someone’s blog. Yea, maybe it’s something trite, like “if you don’t have anything good to say”…
Contribute.
I think I can best sum it up this way: I have a lot more to learn than I have to impart…
Cheers,
Comments on this entry are closed.