October 23, 2003
"Blogging is About Making and Changing Minds."Weblogging is an inconclusive act-- which is different from having no conclusions or firm conclusions.Doc Searls said something important in his weblog the other day. He spoke of three approaches: One is the “cool” approach of traditional journalism… One is the “hot” approach of talk radio, which has since expanded to TV sports networks and now Fox TV. The third is the engaged approach of weblogging. What we’re doing here may be partisan in many cases, but it is also inconclusive. “Partisan but also inconclusive.” What does that mean? I think he’s saying that the writings of the best webloggers are animated by their opinions, but not automated by them. Is this because webloggers are smarter, holier, cooler than others in the chattering classes? Alas, no. It’s only because they’re writers using a nimble modern tool, the weblog, the way it apparently wants to be used. They favor a style of expression—social scientists call it opinion formation—that is interactive with other weblogs and other things on the Web. Doc calls it the engaged approach. One could propose a rule: when you wish to speak here, you do it by commenting on something else. Then you go get the something else and show it to us. If we want to “check” your interpretation with references, we will. This system of checks (and balances) is strong. It can withstand partisanship. But it remains nimbler. So while a good weblogger is constantly engaged with opinion, Doc says: don’t get married. Wedded to your views, that is. Because the next link can not only change your mind, it can add wiring, add memory. Which then forces you to restate your views to see if they survive the new understanding. This is how good weblogs work. For the writers, for the readers, “blogging is about making and changing minds.” Sure, weblogs are good for making statements, big and small. But they also force re-statement. Yes, they’re opinion forming. But they are equally good at unforming opinion, breaking it down, stretching it out, re-building it around new stuff. Come to some conclusions? Put them in your weblog, man, but just remember: it doesn’t want to conclude. People trying to explain their attraction to the weblog form say it’s conversational, two way, personal, a medium for the individual voice— plus interactive with our untold wealth in information, and fun. All true. Doc adds something: weblogging is an inconclusive act— and that’s attractive, part of the fun. The cool, neutral, professional style in journalism says: get both sides and decide for yourself. The hotter, more partisan press says: Decide for yourself—which side?—then go get information. The weblog doesn’t want to be either of these, but it checks and it balances both. Posted by Jay Rosen at October 23, 2003 12:55 AM Print Comments
This is a savvy, insightful blog entry! I loved the idea of forming and "unforming" opinions. Crucial to the idea of unforming opinions, however, is the dialectical nature of the blog -- either through comments, e-mail, or discussion boards. Good blogs are like extended, community conversations. I've seen some bad blogging, though, in the sense that some blogs shut down conversations and opinions if they don't fit with the views of the blogger. To those bloggers, I say "Boooooo!" Posted by: Academy Girl at October 23, 2003 9:20 PM | Permalink Thanks, Academy. Bloggers who "shut down" like that are, according to Searls, using the weblog the wrong way. They're putting instant coffee in the mircowave, and pushing ON. The machine obeys, but the results are poor. Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 23, 2003 11:23 PM | Permalink I think we're coming to the point where there are ethics associated with blogging, but instead of a court we have the readers. If the readers notice that a blogger is 'behaving badly', why worry about them? We all screw up. It's how we handle the screw-ups that determines whether we're good bloggers or not. I think that this essay by Hubert Dreyfus, Kierkegaard on the Internet: Anonymity vrs. Commitment in the Present Age, might offer something to this conversation. He writes: Such a light hearted leap into the deeper water is typified by the net-surfer for whom information gathering has become a way of life. Such a surfer is curious about everything and ready to spend every free moment visiting the latest hot spots on the Web. He or she enjoys the sheer range of possibilities. Something interesting is only a click away. Commitment to a life of curiosity where information is a boundless source of enjoyment puts one in the reflective version of what Kierkegaard calls the aesthetic sphere of existence -- his anticipation of postmodernity. For such a person just visiting as many sites as possible and keeping up on the cool ones is an end in itself. The only meaningful distinction is between those sites that are interesting and those that are boring. Life consists in fighting off boredom by being a spectator at everything interesting in the universe and in communicating with everyone else so inclined. Such a life produces a self that has no defining content or continuity but is open to all possibilities and to constantly taking on new roles. http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/paper_kierkegaard.html He warns that the Internet promotes a continuous cycle of gathering facts and information while working against action or commitment or risk. This might be what Theodor Adorno derided in his idea that the 'culture industry' woos the masses into submission through leisure and entertainment. http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~mdr2/classes/cosk2221_z/Adorno's%20Culture%20Industry.htm I fear that blogging at its worse promotes inactivity and is nothing more substantive than water cooler banter. At its best it is engaged--meaning that it takes risk, makes commitments and acts. Posted by: Tim Bednar at October 24, 2003 10:54 AM | Permalink The Kierkagaardian coolth of the breaking new may be applied to minds already accustomed to information technology, but remember these are only about 1% of all computer users, according to the number of active bloggers. The larger populace, not yet soured by the novelty, will trickle into the ongoing assembly with needs for help and advisories to best turn their good intentions into positive action. The interplay of building on ideas in these type forums helps lay down logical arguments toward achieving theses ends and allows for rounded conversations including disparate opinions. We all benefit. Very interesting post...thanks Jay! All this McLuhanesqe talk of "hot", "cool" makes me wonder then...if the weblog is neither as you suggest, then what is it? Lukewarm? Semicool? Or yet to be defined over time... Agree with Taran about the ethics of blogging, addressed already in part by your list of 10 conservative things about the weblog form in journalism. Have been trying to discover the rules, principles, and ethics in my own new blogging journey, only to discover that they are themselves in flux, evolving, and to some extent, inconclusive. Speaking of advisories for newbie bloggers, Dave Pollard has a good collection in the Blogs and Blogging section of his blog, "How to Save the World". http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/stories/2003/05/13/blogsBloggingTableOfContents.html Posted by: Tammy Bokhari at October 24, 2003 3:03 PM | Permalink I think you are going overboard. The only special thing about blogging is that ordinary folks can do it. Up to now we had to depend on journalists to supply information and pundits to offer their opinions. Now anybody can speak his or her mind. Don't get me wrong. I think this is a tremendous change and bodes well for our democracy. I don't like the idea that now there are the top 100 blogs. Tops according to whom? Another group of elites. Let's keep blogging open. Posted by: Paul Siegel at October 25, 2003 6:16 PM | Permalink It probably should be, but it isn't. Blogging is more about speaking out and meeting other people that agree with your narrow point of view. It's sad, but it's mostly that way. And if people of common interest meets, doesn't that result in more synergy for action? Weblogs and internet are extensions of the human society. It is grounded in people's action, we become distorted or feel powerless when we forget that. Don't just blog, do things with the informationa and understanding that comes out of blogging. But I admit, it is difficult to take action in the real world if I spend so many hours blogging. However, I think the most productive action that results from blogging is creating networks and connectivity which is taking us someplace else... As a new blogger I'm interested to know more about how to not shut down a conversation on blogs. Jay, this was a very insightful post, thanks. Tammy, I think that rather than being in between hot and cold, blogs are weather. Hot one day, cold the next. Rainy sometimes, or snowy. Cold front blowing through. A tornado. An eclipse. Aurora. In other words, the essence of blogging is that blogs are dynamic, moving to, through, and between extremes in seventeen different dimensions. Posted by: Dale Emery at March 29, 2004 7:26 PM | Permalink |
|