|
|
March 31, 2005
Fourteen New Voices: A Reply to Halley's CommentIn deciding how to respond to a public challenge from blogger, writer and big league conferencer Halley Suitt ("Ten New Voices," March 7) I had to identify my options. I figured I could...In deciding how to respond to a public challenge from blogger, writer and big league conferencer Halley Suitt (“Ten New Voices,” March 7) I had to identify my options. I figured I could…
Let’s recall what was called for. Myself and others attending this conference at Harvard were taken to task for “not promoting enough diverse talent in the blogosphere.” In other words, we have a circle of bloggers we refer to and we link to and this can put them on the map and it’s all too often — white, male, American bloggers — who get our attention. I understood that Halley’s challenge was not directed at me, personally, but to Rosen as part of a group of bloggers with a bigger platform who tend to have seats at the table when Big Wigs get together for the latest Blogging Meets Journalism or New Media on the March conference. If the people with the “biggest” platforms invite only each other onto them that’s definitely a problem because we were supposed to have graduated from high school, and moved on with our lives. Halley wrote: So I’m throwing down a month-long challenge in March, to promote TEN NEW VOICES. I‘m asking all the bloggers in the room at Harvard (Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, David Weinberger, Rebecca MacKinnon, Susan Mernit, Shayne Bowman, Ana Marie Cox, Lisa Stone, Chris Willis, Craig Newmark, Bill Gannon) to find TEN NEW VOICES and promote them by writing a post about each as an introduction and blogrolling them. (Ana Marie Cox was not in the room, by the way.) This would have been challenge enough, in my view. “Here are the rules,” Halley said. 1. They can’t be male if they are white; (Which is a very funny line.) And we had a deadline, which was today, March 31. For other responses, see this. For a little dust-up see this. For an objection (National Review) see this. There followed a mini-explosion of posts and comments at those posts about “Ten New Voices,” and its premises— the renewal of a discusssion that’s been rising up and subsiding for a while, and in which people are passionately engaged. Some people. See Burningbird, Guys Don’t Link. Stephen Levy of Newsweek did a piece about it: “Blogging Beyond the Men’s Club.” An immediate good following from Halley’s post was that writer and blogger Jude Nagourney Campbell (See The Rational Liberal) put together this cruisable list of women political bloggers, which in turn raises questions about who the “political” bloggers really are. And Rebecca Blood wrote an intriguing post about that, which was also a reply to Stephen Levy. Another big dividend from Halley’s post was that Web journalist Lisa Stone, who was named in the challenge, decided on “compliance, plus” when she and a colleague, Elisa Camahort, unveiled their idea for “Bloghercon,” a Blogger conference specifically for women. (Sylvia Paull: “It’s a way for women who blog to connect, not a way to disconnect with men who blog.”) The conference is a great idea. Done right, it will be fascinating and memorable for those who can come. I met Lisa, who blogs as Surfette, at BloggerConIII in Palo Alto, and she subsequently became a contributor to PressThink. I asked her for help in thinking through “Ten New Voices” and finding bloggers who perhaps ought to be in the PressThink orbit but aren’t. She very graciously collaborated with me on this post, picking her own top ten, and doing capsule reviews, to which I have added (scroll down for our list). Stone has also thought a lot about who we run into online. She’s tried, in various journalism jobs, to “surf the ’ sphere” and found it circling around to the same sites. I figured: she’s extra qualified for this search. And we discussed, as well, what PressThink should do, among the options 1 to 5 that I began with. I considered them all. We decided to look for:
Take it away, Surfette… A linking meritocracy of your own Did we really love “Lucy”? Or did we just watch her because that’s all that was on TV? My money’s on the latter. That’s why I’m happy to participate in Halley Suitt’s challenge to promote ten voices. It’s time the most-trafficked blogs in the ‘sphere launched a couple hundred or so blog-cable channels with content and links that beef up the programming mix. Why do I have this opinion? Because in the past year, I’ve spent a lot of time surfing the long tail of the blogosphere, first for the Los Angeles Times, then for Law.com and most recently for Knight Ridder Digital. In each case, my assignment was to assess and report back on a diverse cross-section of blogs on the subjects of politics, law and NASCAR. This was a bigger challenge than I originally anticipated, because I was limited by the quality of my search techniques and the time I had to invest in those searches on deadline. I found I could rely on services such as Technorati, Feedster and Truth Laid Bear, but only to a certain extent. Why? Because the same bloggers kept popping up on my searches. I found it surprisingly challenging to extend my appreciation of the blogosphere beyond a list of the usual suspects in any subject or category—even when I scoured blogrolls. My time paid off. And, yes, on the way I discovered the dregs, the blogging equivalents of QVC and Falcon Crest re-runs I won’t even watch with Spanish voiceovers. I hit paydirt too, stumbling across Baldilocks and Carolyn Elefant and Kathy’s Pit Stop. But it was work—and what about the blogs I missed? What about the casual user who isn’t paid to be, well, a surfette? This experience is why I find questions by Suitt and Jeneane Sessums so important. This experience is why it was easier than it should have been for Kevin Drum to miss the kazillions of bloghers who have since chewed his, er, lunch. Why do I value this push for diversity in blogrolls? It’s purely selfish: I have to be able to find quality blogs in order to read them and to link them—not just for my day job, but to feed my own brain. The better (read: more diverse) your blogroll, the smarter and happier this reader is. That’s why my first response to Halley’s comment at Harvard was to out the brainstorm I’d already begun with Elisa Camahort to hold a Bloghercon-ference. I’m also happy to recommend the ten bloggers I review below—one more way to support other bloggers and help you feed a meritocracy of your own. Because the media we consume can only be as good as the media we demand. In Blogworld, the media we demand is the media we’re willing to hunt down and link. So while sometimes I still do love Lucy, I’ll never be a one-woman blogger. I need to learn from the entire blogosphere. And as bloggerdom evolves, si Dios quiere, so will what I read—and recommend. Personally, I’m not going to be satisfied with less than the whole picture. Otherwise, I’d still be parked in front of my TV. So here’s our interpretation of #5 from above. Here are 14 capsule reviews of bloggers you may not know, but should. Blackfeminism.org Tiffany B. Brown and friends deliver a singular blog with Blackfeminism.org. Not only do Brown et al. dish on how blacks are portrayed in mainstream American media, these women also dig into how blacks are portrayed in black media. Smart and funny, Brown and her colleagues evaluate stories on the Rap News Network, live-blog C-SPAN’s coverage of The State of the Black Union and review The Namibian as they talk about gender and sexuality, politics and economics, health, beauty & well-being, and a whole host of other topics. Extra points to the authors for raising the standard of communication in the blogosphere, too. Witness this post on Bishop Eddie Long’s decision to sit down with the Bush administration—proof that even when Brown and her colleagues don’t like what you say or do, you can still expect them to say why in a voice that everyone in the audience can hear. Next time someone tells you they aren’t a feminist, and don’t see any value in a discussion of how race and gender intersect, please, send them here. — Lisa Stone Blogger Sokari says she lives in Body and Soul is one of the best written blogs on the Internet, but don’t take my word for it. There are thousands of bloggers—pick a fan, or even one of her (occasional) critics—you could ask about Jeanne d’Arc’s articulate, well-researched commentary. Better yet, especially if you’re a journalist, read her yourself. You could start with her July, 2004 review of The Christian Science Monitor’s eyebrow-raising piece on prospects for Iraq’s future, or observe her pressure The New York Times’ Bob Herbert for better reporting on voter intimidation. Next, read as she first examines her own motivations and then turns to America’s. Some of her best work happens when she gets logical with policies that attempt to invoke faith – a subject to which she is committed. Whether I find myself agreeing with this woman or not, in a blogosphere increasingly rife with accusations and temper tantrums, snark and spite, I find myself continually returning to the tempered steel of Body and Soul. — Lisa Stone Give me quality of writing over quantity of posts any day. That’s one of the reasons I recommend a four-month-old blog on the New Yorker that oozes good stuff. You don’t have to be a refugee from John McPhee’s three-part series on geology to enjoy blogger Emily Gordon’s lovely touch with the language, as she alternately strokes and skewers the masthead. To wit: “Sniff,” wherein Gordon reviews Chandler Burr’s recent piece on creating a new perfume for Hermes, and then addresses the issue of what to do when, well, the magazine smells: “Fantasy odors and posy smells pretty much sums up most fashion magazines, or The New Yorker during the Dark Ages of Tina,” Gordon writes. Upon learning subscribers may request scent-free magazines, she adds, “Hey, may I request my issues without the beastly whiff of Caitlin Flanagan or poems by John Updike?” Recommend serving with bonus blog-like substance: The New Yorker Inane Ad of the Week, by R.L. Callahan. — Lisa Stone “What can you learn by keeping an open mind; what can you learn from someone different?” asks blogger Keith Jenkins. “Will it be something that can change the world, or will it be something that will change the way you look at the world? Either way, this is how we all get better, by taking our own experiences, coupling them with those of others and then learning new ways to perceive and act.” Jenkins, a leading photojournalist by day, doesn’t flinch on his blog—whether he’s looking through his camera, someone else’s, or tackling the third rail of diversity in media (here, here and here). The result is Good Reputation Sleeping, a blog that evolves the conversation about journalism, in application and in theory, and introduces you-the-reader to the choices of a thinker who is very much awake. — Lisa Stone Saskatoon, Saskatchewan is where Jordon Cooper lives. He’s a (geek) pastor at Lakeland Church there. (“I decided to upgrade the church’s Flickr account to a Flickr Pro account. There was a lot more then ten megabytes of things God was doing at the church…”) Also a big sports fan and, in addition to his own blog, he is a co-founder of The Hockey Pundits. Cooper, man of God, is also a student of post-modernism, which knows no gods unworthy of suspicion. He tries to “engage in conversation with people around the globe about the gospel and a changing postmodern culture.” (See, for example, his resource page on it.) His weblog, jordoncooper.com is a mix of everything that interests him, plus what happens in his Saskatchewan world, physically and meta-physically. I consider that kind of blogging to be the hardest style to master, but Jordon is an expert at it, and of many other things Web. Spend some time as his site (like this page of interviews) and you will see why I say that. Simple device of his that I love: A recurrent post called contextless links. — Jay Rosen The Jenny of Jenny D. was a journalist for 15 years. Now she’s getting a PhD in Education at Michigan State and she’s a mother, which is a PhD in something. Her weblog is a diary of her puzzles and discoveries as she learns a new field (including its language, edu-eese) and compares it to fields she had earlier mastered— life as a parent, life as a journalist, life as a citizen of these states, life on earth. “Education, public policy and politics, middle-aged moms, life in the Midwest, life in the academy,” says her description of her blog’s contents; and that’s accurate enough. I see it as much more. Jenny used to be a journalist. She’s somewhere else now, and her commitments are totally different. When she looks back it’s always interesting. After all, Journalism is her ex, and she’s “over” him, er… it. Read this post to the end and you’ll see what I mean. — Jay Rosen Disclosure #1: When I recommended this woman to blog motorsports for Knight Ridder’s dedicated NASCAR Web site, I could tell from her AOL Journal that she was a true-blue motorsports fan. Disclosure #2: What I couldn’t have predicted was whether Kathy of Kathy’s Pit Stop, with her straightforward writing, would blossom or bomb. She didn’t bomb. The fans—and there are at least 100 people watching TV for every single person at the track on any given weekend—listened up. To date Kathy has racked up a lion’s share of community comments, which I attribute partly to the five-second therapy she regularly delivers to media coverage of racing (e.g., here and here). Honorable mention: Janelle Ramon’s NASCAR blog for the Arizona Daily Star is so good that her boss should let her really enter the blogosphere by adding comments, trackbacks and a blogroll. — Lisa Stone For an example of how a professional journalist can be humanized by a weblog, check into MeMo by Kyrie O’Connor. She is deputy managing editor for features at the Houston Chronicle; her blog started as a memo to her staff, “but it simply grew and got its own peculiar voice,” she says. MeMo is not about the Chronicle or the problems of journalism. (The problems of Kyrie, yes.) First, it’s funny. (See her note on the death of a goldfish.) Sometimes ha ha funny, but more times witty. She’s an accomplished linker and finds stuff of the sort that might come across the desk of a “lifestyles and trends” editor. She doesn’t ignore hard news, but takes it on the way a Keith Olbermann might. O’Connor says she is “a recent Houston transplant, homeowner, dog and cat owner, hapless traveler, bad-TV-commercial addict” (and a mom.) If I were struggling freelancer, I would start my day with her links and commentary. And if I ran the Houston Chronicle I’d get her some better digs. (Kyrie e-mails: “I know some changes are in the works to make the blog less velveteen — trackback, posted comments and the like.”) — Jay Rosen Cori Dauber, an academic, writes Ranting Profs (Media Coverage of the War on Terror.) It’s a very newsy blog. First she’s taking apart a Washington Post headline, then she’s puncturing a windbag like Chris Matthews, now she’s breaking down the numbers in a Wall Street Journal poll, or tracking a phony controversy through the news pages, and sometimes relaying the hilariously dumb thing that just got said on CNN, or (her specialty) explaining how terrorism works in the media age. Cori Dauber just isn’t going to tell you what other people have told. Part of the reason is her background: scholarly training in rhetoric is just about the best tool you can have to study news and politics with. She is dogged in her pursuit of understandings things for herself, and gifted enough to share that pursuit with readers. Way closer to Bush than to Kerry, a supporter of the War in Iraq, and certainly a critic of “bias” in the media, she is utterly unformulaic in her writing, which is why I prize her weblog. Also, an expert linker and document finder. Find her, professor Cori Dauber, at Ranting Profs. — Jay Rosen Ever wonder why Americans get angry with the media? Speaking for myself, Regret the Error is both the answer and the cure. This daily blog “on corrections, retractions, clarifications and trends regarding accuracy and honesty in the media,” is a testament to the cleansing business of owning your mistakes. Canadian writer Craig Silverman takes a facts-only approach to media errors, linking 70-plus corrections pages from his blogroll and summarizing the lead stories, where his headlines inject subtle, wry humor. Silverman’s good (see here, here and here), so I always start amused, but end rather nauseated, depending upon the scope of mistakes he’s unearthed. And, yes, he’s human too—the difference is that this journalist is not afraid to admit it. It only adds to Silverman’s legitimacy that he’s no hypocrite: Don’t miss “We Crunked,” the blog’s own dedicated corrections page. — Lisa Stone Every time I update Legal Blog Watch, it’s an excuse to read this blogger. “Sassy” as she signs her posts, (and I am going to respect her privacy and withhold her name), is a self-described Filipina attorney, wife and mother who writes five blogs from her home in the Philippines. Of the amazing number of selections on this blogshelf, my favorite is The Sassy Lawyer’s Journal, in which Sassy regularly applies her legal scholarship and incisive logic to demands for fairness and accuracy in the media—among many other things. She’s an unflinching factchecker who reviles propaganda and innuendo masquerading as facts. Read Sassy whether you’re a lawyer, a journalist or someone who consumes both—she’ll make you smarter. — Lisa Stone Quick - roll your eyes and tell a very smart joke in English and Urdu. You just recreated the tongue-in-cheek, insider-y tone used by seven South Asian bloggers who write Sepia Mutiny. For those of you who are behind on (or, let’s be real, who were never taught) Asian history, “sepia” and “mutiny” are a blogplay-on-words rooted in India’s brown uprising. The blog’s FAQ explains all, including the blog’s origins as a site aimed at desis—homeboys from the South Asian diaspora—although pardesis (foreigners) are welcome. And it’s one online cocktail party you don’t want to miss. A central theme is (re)interpreting news reports from the desi perspective, particularly the influx of Western culture, Bollywood, politics, war, careers and gender, in a thriving, smart community. Particularly recommended for the cinephile or xenophobe on your email list. — Lisa Stone Got a teenager in your focus group—or living room? If so, you could learn a lot from reading Anastasia Goodstein’s blog Ypulse. Goodstein covers media by, about and for teens and ‘tweens. Working with a growing staff of teen editors (see bottom of page), Goodstein’s blog is the only one Seventeen editor Atoosa Rubenstein says she reads every day. While Ypulse is aimed at marketing and media professionals, it has tapped into a huge secondary market of parents and teachers who want to learn more about the teenagers in their lives. This blog delivers on its big-umbrella agenda: In addition to traditional categories on newspapers, magazines, radio and television, Goodstein et al. invest the time necessary to cover more than a dozen other hot categories, including digital graffiti, ‘Tweens, youth media and Christian teen media. Hard to imagine who else would point users to SNAG—see what I mean? — Lisa Stone After Matter: Notes, reactions and links… Sandhill Trek: 10 New Voices - Wrapping it up here. Chris Nolan, in a vigorous and entertaining response to Kevin Drum called The League of Extraordinarily Stupid Gentlemen, says to Mr. Washington Monthly: “Pick an argument once a week with a woman writer. Boost her traffic, get her noticed.” I like the way she thinks. Who we pick an argument with, or don’t, and why we do or don’t— this says a lot about us. The site is called Watching America: “Discover What the World Thinks About U.S.” Great place to start discovering blogs: Deep Blog. Portal page with a human touch— and categories. Dave Winer at Scripting News (April 1, 2004): On this day in 1997 I did my first weblog post at www.scripting.com. 8 years is a long run for a weblog. Scripting News was the inspiration for many of the mainstays of the blogging world, and they in turn inspired others, and on and on. This has been the template for growth, and it’s a good one. Every new blog begets more new blogs. That mine was the root for so many is the accomplishment I’m most proud of. Happy Birthday, Scripting. I’ve certainly learned how to do blogging from it. Now this is the kind of “diversity” discussion I like, where there is some feel for paradox. Rebecca Blood, during an exchange in comments, explains why the Web “will, by it’s very nature, make it nearly impossible for anyone to realize how exclusive their linking and reading habits actually are.” It’s like entering a room in which the walls are entirely covered with doors. You open some of the doors, enter new rooms, all of which are covered with doors. you walk through them, and eventually you find that many of them lead you to the same rooms over and over again. Still, there are more doors and more rooms than you would ever have time to explore. Tim Schmoyer responds to the discussion in comments: “Let’s talk about inbound links, outbound links, traffic (visits and page views) and what a Blogiverse Portal and Awareness Tool might look like for a minute, shall we?” Jenny D. one of the bloggers reviewed here, gives her take on the political economy of linking: Journalism and the culture of power. But everyone who’s not a fish…we can see the water. We can see who’s in it, and we can see that we’re not. In my business, the water could be called the “culture of power.” Those who are in it can’t see it because it is part of their being. But everyone else can. The discussion continues with comments by Halley Suitt, Rebecca Blood, Billy the Blogging Poet, Jenny D and others.
Posted by Jay Rosen and Lisa Stone at March 31, 2005 10:52 PM
Comments
This is a good start-- glad you posted it today, and not in an hour, when it would be April Fool's Day. And once again Jay you prove that you are not a blogger. The classic blogger posts a blogroll, a static list of names, scrimping on the description. Capsule reviews are golden. And thanks for the link to my documentation as well-- the women's movement isn't just for women after all. Apparently another piece I wrote, coverage of this year's first BloJoCred conference, attracted the attention of Heather MacDonald in the National Review Online who dumped on Halley's idea and Steve Levy for passing it along (and strangely called my piece "self-parody.") MacDonald conjures up for her readers the specter of a "federal Digital Diversity Agency," which is of course just some red meat to the readers of NRO. Nonetheless, I see nothing wrong with encouraging the blog registration services (e.g. Technorati) to enable bloggers and other online personalities to fill out their online census, if they so choose, to make it easier to find people if you want to see a different perspective. And furthermore, I called for the issue of diversity to be studied more rigorously. What are your thoughts? Posted by: Jon Garfunkel at March 31, 2005 11:50 PM | Permalink My thought is that some subjects in our life and times reach the point of "absolutely politicized" right out of the starting gate; and this is one. Well let's count our blessings that media analysis isn't one of them. Posted by: Jon Garfunkel at April 1, 2005 12:42 AM | Permalink Great essay! The link to Baldilocks is broken above. Great post! Thanks for giving me a bunch of new bloggers to link to. Also glad to see Iddybud (Jude Nagourney Campbell) linked up above because she deserves a lot more attention herself. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at April 1, 2005 5:07 AM | Permalink Observations on the diversity divide: Here we have lists from two people of "new voices" that are required under the rules to reflect "diversity". One of the people is a member of the so-called dominant "straight white male" group of bloggers, the other isn't. based on the descriptions themselves (rather than a thorough examination of the blogs in question) 75% of one list features blogs with a highly "personal" focus----blog by people who write primarily about their own experiences and perceptions of the world. The second list is almost a mirror image of the first. Most of the bloggers cited in the second list are "expert" blogs --- blogs with a specific topic or fairly narrow range of topics that the blogger reports on/discusses. Of course, its impossible to generalize by examining the lists of "diverse" new voices generated by just two people, but the stark differences in these two lists raises the question of the purpose of diversity -- and perhaps more importantly, how the purpose of diversity may be percieved differently by the "dominate" group than by the "excluded" group. Posted by: p.lukasiak at April 1, 2005 5:34 AM | Permalink Jay and Lisa = This is terrific and right on the money. It's gotten me thinking of another way to explain what I was saying in the first place -- since so many people picked up my idea and ran with it IN THE COMPLETELY WRONG DIRECTION. I think mainstream journalists have been front and center on the newsstand for so long, (and I mean the real-world newsstand where magazines and papers are sold -- those things printed w/ink on paper) they don't understand how you get READ in the blogosphere. As the piece by Heather MacDonald in NRO goes on and on about -- that blogs are free and everyone's equal in the blogging world -- this happens to be true, but completely misses the point. Yes, anyone can write a blog, but it's not about writing -- it's about being READ. Imagine a newsstand in Times Square, perhaps enjoying the highest traffic of any newsstand anywhere in the world. On this newsstand a few publications are out front and center and the rest are hidden away behind the little shed. Who decides how what new magazines get a chance to shine out front and which get stashed near the trash in the back? Is it based on the quality of writing? Not necessarily. It's all who you know, who's publishing you, who's bribing the guy behind the newsstand. Similarly in the blogosphere, who mentions you and who LINKS TO YOU, puts you in premier position on the virtual newsstand to be READ, or without links, to be ignored. That's what links do. Mainstream media either decided to ignore this fact, if they knew it at all, or worse, they are so naive about the blogosphere that they don't get it. Again, if Heather MacDonald feels the blogosphere and blogs are so egalitarian, why did she bother publishing her piece in NRO when she could have set up a blog and blogged it ... let me think ... give me a minute ... could it have something to do with her desire TO BE READ? And if she knew anything about blogging, she'd know that being linked and being noticed by other bloggers makes or breaks your readership. Interestingly, you Jay and a few other people actually made an effort to promote TEN NEW VOICES on their blogs. Most everyone else simply gnashed their teeth and defended the color of their skin (white) and how their writing was just plain excellent and that's why everyone reads them ... no one knows you're a dog on the Net, but most people can assume you're a white male dog (human years 18 - 35) living in the suburbs eating IAMS. I put the challenge out there to see how many people would do the hard work of promoting and linking to others. I knew a specific and reasonable call to action would be ignored and the argument would be twisted around to serve every blogger's own selfish arguments towards self-promotion. It was amusing to watch. I'll be in New York at Reuters Tuesday night, April 5 (she says promoting herself) to talk more about bloggers and journalists and how to continue the conversation then. Halley Posted by: Halley Suitt at April 1, 2005 6:39 AM | Permalink [Off-topic and on-topic at the same time.] Kristin Waters is my sister. I'm going to take the opportunity to proudly offer a plug for her book, Women and Men Political Theorists: Enlightened Conversations. Just as you are expanding this circle, she expanded the standard canonical works in philosophy by juxtaposing them with women of the time, writing, often better, on the same topic. A reviewer writes: Women and Men Political Theorists is a rich and insightful collection of essays that restores important works to the arena of modern political theory and debate. Organized by theme, the book pairs up lesser-known figures with canonical writers, to produce a unique historical dialogue. The perspectives of Mary Astell, Mary Wollstonecraft, and African American writers like Maria W. Stewart and Anna Julia Cooper answer issues raised by Locke, Rousseau, Mill, and other classical theorists. The editor's fresh approach sheds new light on traditional and feminist concepts. Her substantial critical introductions, biographical material, and bibliographies provide an indispensable resource for students and researchers. Thanks, Halley. I have a many questions about the whole deal, and this way of doings things, although I am quite satisfied with the way the post came out and credit Lisa Stone, and her approach, for much of it. It gave me some ideas for how to improve PressThink. For example: I could add one capsule review to every one of my "feature" posts in the After Matter section. It's just a paragraph with links and that's what I do now. I could also farm out the writing of them to PressThink readers who want to tout a blog they think other readers of this blog--specifically--would enjoy. I'm not sure I will, but I could. That's between 100 and 150 mini-reviews a year. You say you "knew a specific and reasonable call to action would be ignored and the argument would be twisted around." If that's the case, then you must have gone ahead expecting to make a point about those who ignored the call, or twisted the argument. What was it that made you decide to go ahead, despite these known reactions? Finally, a philosophical puzzle. You describe a call to action. I respond with this post. But is my post an action, or is it just a responsive post? Rosen has spent too much time in academia. Halley's article and her complaints and her challenge are simply more worthless group identity self-promotion masquerading as a call for diversity. Insultingly patronizing and manipulative into the bargain. Just depressing. It's the same attitude behind "diversity"--of anything but ideas--which gives us laughingstocks like the LATimes and NPR and the comically insular university. So you see what I mean, then, by "absolutely politicized." It's for that reason that I don't I like this way of doing things. Because of the political pressures and the scene of battling orthodoxies that attends the whole subject of "new voices" and "diversity" concerns, freedom of thought is generally not prized anywhere in the discussion, and PC swamps abound everywhere, which is not to say that all the land is swamp. A lot is, though. (An example of solid ground: I do think American journalism has failed because it developed a narrative too uniform to fit the country, and a culture too insular to "listen" well. That's a diversity problem.) I was taken with something Rebecca Blood said: One factor that is never considered in these discussions is the nature of the technology itself. The Web has created a surfeit of information. Yet, within this seemingly endless supply of information, anything unlinked is invisible. Those two factors alone inescapably create echo chambers. The equation might look something like this: Unlimited information + limited time + (the illusion of) a complete view = A (Self-selecting) Closed System. This is an interesting subject, but, because we are talking about human behavior within a complex ecosystem, it just can't be reduced to two or three simple factors. In other words, the Web can magnify feelings of invisiblity, and distribute those feelings over more people, which is the opposite of the Web "providing voice." But also: people self-selecting a world of limited visibility is human nature, colliding with the nature of the Web. Her key phrase is "the illusion of a complete view," which does so much damage and yet remains too convenient, too useful to let go. Blood also says: There is a lot of justified frustration with posting your heart out day after day and not being heard, and a lot of (largely unjustified) feeling that one is deliberately being kept out of the conversation by people who have the power to get your views out to the world. I feel this frustration--often--myself, and over the years I've heard it at least as much from men as from women. I think this is real, not "just politics." It's exactly the way I felt about the gatekeepers in the journalism discussion before I started PressThink. Hi everybody - a couple of responses I owe Sisyphus: Doh! The Baldilocks link is fixed. Thanks mucho. Ron: Agreed. My POV: Jude Nagurney Camwell's demonstrated some real leadership. sbw: Great--this book sounds interesting. Halley: Good to see your thoughts on this, one month into the occasionally hysterical reaction. Jay raises a good question above--"What was it that made you decide to go ahead, despite these known reactions?"--and I'd love to hear your thoughts. You know: Why rock the boat, boat rocker? (GBS Prof. Debra Meyerson's philosophy of "Tempered Radicals" comes to mind...) Jon: Agreed, the women's movement isn't just for women. Hence the quote by Gail Sheehy on Surfette. Posted by: Lisa Stone at April 1, 2005 12:45 PM | Permalink jay: In other words, the Web can magnify feelings of invisiblity, and distribute those feelings over more people, which is the opposite of the Web "providing voice." that's a terrific point, jay. I've never thought of it in quite those terms before you said it that way. and the other side of it is that the Web will, by it's very nature, make it nearly impossible for anyone to realize how exclusive their linking and reading habits actually are. it's like entering a room in which the walls are entirely covered with doors. you open some of the doors, enter new rooms, all of which are covered with doors. you walk through them, and eventually you find that many of them lead you to the same rooms over and over again. still, there are more doors and more rooms than you would ever have time to explore. what you don't know--what you can't know--is that there are other sections of the building, unconnected to this one. the section you are in is so vast that it seems it must represent the majority of the space. additionally, since so many of the doors lead to the same places, it is easy to assume that these must be the most important rooms in the building. people in other sections of the building, unconnected to yours, are drawing the same conclusion about a different set of rooms. knowledge--and social networks--have always worked this way, but at least in the library you can see the books you haven't read. Posted by: rebecca blood at April 1, 2005 1:04 PM | Permalink Jay quoting Rebecca: The equation might look something like this: Unlimited information + limited time + (the illusion of) a complete view = A (Self-selecting) Closed System. The problem extends beyond the web. Look back at those who, because they see the nightly news on television, feel they are informed. One is not well-educated until humbled to appreciate what one does not know. Editing is valuable because good editors do what Jay just did. Thank you very much for including Blackfeminism.org among your "New Voices." People don't realize how important new voices are, if only to stop the echo chamber in your own head. Sorry to post back-to-back like this, but I was struck by p.lusiak's comments. Um, isn't that about 99% of the blogging universe? Or are you saying that Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan, Juan Cole, etc. write about "universal issues" from a "universal perspective"? Or are you saying that Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan, Juan Cole, etc. write about "universal issues" from a "universal perspective"? if one must classify blogs, I think there are two separate species... the "personal" blog (blogs that tell the reader about the personal life of the person, and/or tells what that person thinks using the first person, i.e. "I think..." or "It seems to me..." the "non-personal" blog.... these blogs seldom discuss what is happening in the bloggers day to day life, and generally provides opinion and analysis without using the first person. (although I've run across quite a few of these kinds of blogs, I don't actually read any, so I can't provide any specific, well-known examples.) In the second category, there are "generalists" (people like Reynolds, Sullivan, Atrios, Digby, etc) who don't have a particular focus, and link and comment to whatever draws their attention in the news, and "experts" (people like Cole, Clemons, DeLong, Niewart, etc.) who usually restrict their writing to a particular subject area. As I noted originally, I based my observation solely on the description of the blogs listed (although I did check three of them), and based my comments on the descriptions. Mostly, my purpose was to ask whether there was a difference in the perception of the purpose of diversity between the "dominant" group and the "excluded" group, which is something I'd never considered before. Posted by: p.lukasiak at April 1, 2005 2:41 PM | Permalink oops...the line "(although I've run across quite a few of these kinds of blogs, I don't actually read any, so I can't provide any specific, well-known examples.)" was apended to the wrong paragraph --- it should have appeared at the end of the prior paragraph. (I only wish that would teach me to preview everything I write....but I've made enough stupid errors of this nature to think that I think I'm ineducable ) Posted by: p.lukasiak at April 1, 2005 2:44 PM | Permalink All this is interesting in a retro type of way. Any habitue of blogs will know that you can get anything you want at the Blog Cafe. If you only want a Mongolian, left-handed, peg-legged, marxist, dyslexic, transexual,Episcopalian POV, you can find it on the net. You don't need Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall or Duncan Black to help you find it---you know where it is, and you know how to find it. It's so '90s, MSM and gatekeeperish to think that quotas will broaden understanding. What matters more---race and gender, or ideas? Posted by: kilgore trout at April 1, 2005 3:02 PM | Permalink Then let's promote ideas. Posted by: kilgore trout at April 1, 2005 3:54 PM | Permalink Jay is promoting ideas. going through the list, the thinking on these sites is very good, the issues discussed are substantive, and the writing is top rate. quotas don't broaden understanding--exposure to a broad range of ideas, does. understanding is better informed when exposed to a range of ideas from a variety of perspectives. have you ever seen the ideas espoused on the weblogs listed here put forth by any member technorati's top 100? Posted by: rebecca blood at April 1, 2005 4:07 PM | Permalink What matters more---race and gender, or ideas? Can they be separated? I'm not so sure. To rebecca blood: I don't go by technorati's top 100 to determine what I read, and neither does anyone else. I don't understand your point. We are free to view a wide array of POV or not. Posted by: kilgore trout at April 1, 2005 5:51 PM | Permalink For my 40th (years ago), in lieu of presents, I asked guests to bring a pointer to a book worth reading. Wonderful time. What H. prompted and J. delivered was just such a gift. What people value enough to recommend is what you want. Which is why, nine years ago, we tried to set up a web pointer list that was weighted by the value of the people who thought enough of the link to vote for it. I did suggest the Sound Idea is the internet currency that counts. Hi Jay. I am pleased to be on your list. To clarify, you linked to one of my more personal posts, in which I linked my old life (journalist) to my new life (education scholar/researcher). Like all the others on your list, my writing about my ideas and professional quest blends with other thoughts. Which is what surprises me about some of the comments here. Few, if any, bloggers never write about themselves at all. Glenn Reynolds blogs about his razor, his camera, his daughter's IShuffle. How much more personal do we need to get? Yet he's considered a "non-personal" blogger. I think writing a blog is actually like writing a good newspaper column. It is about ideas, but sometimes personal activities illustrate larger, more general aspects of life, politics, ideology, morality. All that. If I could classify myself, I'd like to see myself as a specialty writer, with in depth knowledge about a complex, technical subject, who tries to write about it in ways that all can understand and appreciate. One more thing, if Bill Gannon is who I think he is, then he and I were baby reporters back in the day at a crummy newspaper in suburban NJ. How things have changed! The way I see it: a writer must earn his or her way into circles. Then those circles work as a wholes to get to the top. Sure, I'd love it if Pressthink and the other big names were to quote me daily, but Pressthink doesn't do that and that's life as I see it. That being said: There are some in Pressthink's circle that quote me on a reasionably regular basis and others (including Pressthink) who have quoted me occasionally so our circles intersect and in that way I rise with my circle. Sure, I'd like lots of big breaks but why should anyone give me a break when everyone else had to earn their breaks? Fact is: you make your own breaks, nobody is ever "discovered." This is the way those at the top got there in the first place, and yes it will be harder for those of us lower down to get there than it was for those who went first, but life is like that. That's why innovation becomes so important: No one will ever be a better Glenn Reynolds than Glenn Reynolds is so why not be something different and carve your own niche? By the way, anyone interested in electing a Blogging Poet Laureate? It will be the first ELECTED poet laureate in the history of the world. Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet at April 1, 2005 11:23 PM | Permalink I'm gay, black, 58 years old, and blog only when a particular subject strikes me as worthy of comment. All my blog entries are about current events save for one or two that touch on personal matters in passing. Does this help you out in any way? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at April 1, 2005 11:31 PM | Permalink As we wrap our internet and print newspapers around contributing readers, fresh pointers will be integral: Sorry not to respond sooner. I was offline most of the day, out and about. Let me see if I've got the question right ... I'll cut and paste it from above: I guess I should have said, "a call to action would be ignored by most bloggers" and hoped a few would rise to the occasion. Wasn't that exactly what happened? I threw down the challenge as well because it was measurable. I don't mean to be so cynical, but I assumed given the opportunity to talk about something, as opposed to DO SOMETHING, most of us (including me, often as not) pick the first -- just talk -- and talk is cheap. I didn't go ahead expecting to rub anyone's nose in it. I just wanted to raise some consciousness. Including my own, and I found it myself to be a tough exercise. As many people here have said, whether we're looking for new voices of a diverse population, or just new voices of people exactly like ourselves, it's just plain hard to find new voices and take time to know them. (BTW, loved your idea of how to do that.) I'd also ask the question of blog software developers, why isn't there an easy way to automatically generate a blogroll that has the keen intelligence of an Amazon book list of recommendations -- "If you like my blog, you'll also like this:" and such a list of new blogs would have characteristics of my writing and would present new voices to my readers automatically and to me. Equally, if I could go to PressThink and see an automatically generated "recommended blogs" list on your blog, Jay, that would point me to blogs equally well-written and well-thought out and on a wide variety of subjects ... that would be awesome. And I'm not just talking about search results based on content or keyword queries -- I mean similar style. I assume Amazon does this by seeing others who buy books (insert "read blogs") similar to mine. If they buy 10 of the same books I have bought and then recommend one I haven't(insert "read 10 of the same blogs") then they recommend a new blog, I'd like to be alerted. Posted by: Halley Suitt at April 2, 2005 9:06 AM | Permalink Jay Rosen: "It's exactly the way I felt about the gatekeepers in journalism discussion before I started PressThink." Can we categorize bloggers' posts (reductively) into two types? There are posts where it just needed to be said. Whether it's heard or not is not important (or not as important, to the blogger). Then there are posts that are written by the blogger to be heard. Bloggers have varying expectations for their posts and the effect can be cumulative. How do we (other bloggers and especially those with the ability to shine a big spotlight on a post (rather than on a blog)) know when a long-tail blogger has a post desperate to be read? rebecca blood: "... but at least in the library you can see the books you haven't read." One of the reasons I proposed a blogiverse portal was to enable the blog-surfer to visualize the varying blog galaxies of different topics and POVs. I'm considering whether it can be atomized further to individual posts by categories. Giving a more diverse view of an individual blog rather than categorizing content by the blog. Halley Suitt: "And I'm not just talking about search results based on content or keyword queries -- I mean similar style." Hmmm ... intitial knee-jerk reaction is ouch! What do you mean by style? I like the idea of a software solution that would, for example, generate a "recommended" list automatically based on whom I am linking to. When some new blog is referenced in PressThink, it could alet me and ask if I wanted to add it. I would love to know who I am linking the most to, as well. Halley, you said you wanted to "raise consciousness," and I know what you mean. This assignment did make me ask questions I might not have asked, and it's generated some ideas for blog improvement. I do find, however, that "raise consciousness" is generally a one-way street. It's for those perceived to be advantaged; they must have their consciousness raised. Asking for the reverse is futile. For example, I came across this "post" at Morph, the weblog of the institution (Media Center) that sponsored the Harvard conference that led to Halley's Challenge. This is the entire entry, by Roxanne Cooper: Where are the "citizens" in citizens-based media? There are a handful of old white men who usually serve as the official spokesmodels for blogs/ citizens-based media/ two-way media/ grassroots media as it relates to the future of journalism. Most of them spent their younger, productive days toiling in legacy media. Does anyone else see the irony in this? I call that a "post" because it barely qualifies as blog writing in my view. It took no work, named no names, offered no link. It was inelegantly written. It unfairly generalized. It engaged in the stereotyping its author would in others abhor. It lacked courage (with its nameless, link-less indictment) lacked analysis, and added zero value to a discussion (citizens media) that needs good minds. I was surprised that a professional-development center like The Media Center had standards so low for guest writers at Morph that it would permit such a post, and I added my complaints in the comments. But "consciousness raising" typically doesn't work that way. Roxanne Cooper had the PC arrow going her way. For this entry, she didn't need to think, link, name a name, find a quote, or do a single hand curl let alone any heavy lifting on the subject. (It's not like she doesn't know how to write a basic blog post.) Everyone at the Media Center, everyone involved in Morph treated her condescendingly by looking the other way, and pretending that her "post" made some sort of contribution, or "sparked" discussion. Now comes this note in Morph from the Media Center's Gloria Pan: Out of our Whose News symposium at Harvard came the challenge to promote diversity in the blogosphere.... So now the babysitting continues, and "brave" Roxanne has to be patted on the head for starting something vital. I found this astounding; again I said so in the comments, and the reply was: "Jay, you may not like the way Roxanne said it, but what she said had validity. And she did say it first in this blog." Roxanne Cooper herself added: "As with all things, the open, democratic system the blogosphere was supposed to be is just like everything else -- a struggle for power and control. Those who have it, don't want to give it up. Those who don't have it, want it." One despairs of consciousness-raising in circumstances like that. halley: why isn't there an easy way to automatically generate a blogroll that has the keen intelligence of an Amazon book list of recommendations -- "If you like my blog, you'll also like this halley, that *is* a popularity contest. amazon bases their recommendations on buying patterns, not content or style. (there's no semantic Web yet, remember--recs can only be based on what is quantifiable.) such a recommendation system would only reinforce the existing patterns of popularity--it wouldn't provide a glimpse into alternate clusters, and it wouldn't bring to light the members of the long tail. jay: I like the idea of a software solution that would, for example, generate a "recommended" list automatically based on whom I am linking to. When some new blog is referenced in PressThink, it could alert me and ask if I wanted to add it. your referrer logs do that already. that's where I find most of the new weblogs I link on my site. you have to comb through them, but it's easy enough to scroll down and click unfamiliar links. of the sites that link to me, most provide one, or maybe two click-throughs a day. that's probably the maintainer, so it's also an organic "if you liked this weblog (mine) you may also like this other (the blogger who likes my site well enough to link to it.)" that doesn't provide me with alternate points of view most of the time, but it does let me look deep into the long tail. alternately, technorati can give you a snapshot of who is linking to your site. if you make a watchlist, it can be delivered in RSS to your computer several times a day. Posted by: rebecca blood at April 2, 2005 12:17 PM | Permalink Thinking about what Billy wrote (thanks, Billy) here are Some ways to earn a link from PressThink: * Link to a PressThink post and discuss it, or the issues raised in it, in an intelligent way. (The longer your post is, the better.) * Write a post in PressThink's major areas of interest that gets other people talking, and makes an original point or two. The blogs I read regularly will link to it, and I will find it. * Offer a round-up post with a lot of links that acts as a handy discussion guide for an issue of interest at PressThink. * Offer expertise where PressThink lacks it (like, say, an economist weighing in on the changing market for news, or a former editor at About.com speaking up about the company) and put it in your blog post. * Make a PressThink obsession (like de-certifying the press) a blogging interest of your own. * Criticize Rosen at your blog in an orginal, arresting and substantial (or entertaining) way. * E-mail me when you have a post that you think deserves to be part of PressThink. (Don't use this option unless you're grown up enough to realize it's a crap shoot, and I may not agree with you. If you're wondering, what's a polite way to ping me on a post you really think I should consider because it really is a PressThink post... Just put: "take a look" somewhere. Don't forget to say why. I have very specific interests. They're not hard to figure out through the pleasurably simple method of reading PressThink over a stretch of time. * Post a link and an explanation for why it's related in the comments. Any abuse of that one gets deleted immediately. * By far the best way to be linked by PressThink is to participate in the discussions going on across many posts at www.pressthink.org, intersecting with the blogging world, intersecting with the news. Participating, I grant you, is a demanding condition for a link. But that's my niche, I feel. PressThink is demanding. Rebecca: I think you misread my sentences: I like the idea of a software solution that would, for example, generate a "recommended" list automatically based on whom I am linking to. When some new blog is referenced in PressThink, it could alert me and ask if I wanted to add it. I use referrer logs exactly as you say; and find many things that way. (The most reliable way of getting PressThink to notice you is to link to PressThink.) But I was talking about outbound links. Right now, I cannot push a button and find everyone I have linked to (not who's linking to me) and in what frequency. But I would like to have such a button. I would like to know how many times (and when) I linked to Billy the Blogging poet, and Rebecca Blood, and Tim (Sisyphus.) A link distribution log for outbound links, in other words. ah, I did completely misread you. it would also be a good check to see if you're always linking to the same 6 people (which I know I do). I would think creating such a tool would be trivial, as the programmers say. ah, to know a little perl! Posted by: rebecca blood at April 2, 2005 12:34 PM | Permalink How about this for an alternative voice in the blogosphere Jeff, I am so slow. I have to think about things for hours before I finally figure out what I mean. I wrote this in am update to a post.... http://drcookie.blogspot.com/2005/04/journalism-and-culture-of-power.html I think where I mean to go with all this is here--the power of old media was in the exclusive, capital-intensive packaging and distribution of content. But the web has made it easier for anyone to package and put out content. What hasn't changed, though, is that distribution channels are still valuable and controlled by a few. What do I mean by that? Distribution in old media were broadcast frequencies (channels) or newsstands and paperboys who actually put news on your doorstep. But how do you get your blog read? I don't know how it was in the "early" days, but now there are a 100 or so widely read blogs (and the exact number of "hits" they get seems to be rather closely guarded secret--I haven't see Instapundit, or Buzzmachine, or Powerline post their hit counts for the day). Clearly, though, these guys are getting read, and if you want to get read yourself, you have to get them to link to you. Then you have to write stuff people want to read. But undoubtedly, if distribution on the web means getting your blog read, then some folks have more distribution than others. If the guys with the corner on distribution claim to be on the side of citizens media, do they have an obligation to open their distribution to a wide variety of voices? Well, I'm Jay not Jeff. Jeff Jarvis is in the Technorati Top 100 (42 last time I looked). PressThink is not. Nor is it close. On Truth Laid Bare I am a top 250 blog. But PressThink is read by a lot of those blogs, so you could say I am a conduit to them. But I take your point. (Jenny's post is excellent, by the way.) And it's enough to make me think I should stop going to conferences for a while. "If the guys with the corner on distribution claim to be on the side of citizens media, do they have an obligation to open their distribution to a wide variety of voices?" If I buy the "corner on distribution" argument, then I would say they have some obligation like that, yes. They also have an obligation to be guided by their own definition of "wide" and "variety." First obligation is to do a good blog. I don't know, Jenny, if you were reacting to my anecdote about Roxanne Cooper in your post, but for the record, I do find these lines... I love Jay, don't get me wrong, but clearly there is this aging-white-guy aura to the whole citizen journalism, blogging thing. mildly offensive and wrong-headed (and incurious, besides.) Fortunately, your post is much more than that. And I have to add: Anyone who wants to know why an aging white male like Jeff Jarvis has lots of readers, check out what goods he offers about the Pope's death right now. What is it? Links to other blogs. Jay: I do find these lines... I love Jay, don't get me wrong, but clearly there is this aging-white-guy aura to the whole citizen journalism, blogging thing. mildly offensive and wrong-headed... [Laughter] Gotta love it. De-certification of Jay. Hoist on his own petard... and not comfortable with it. [Okay. He's right... but I had to play the opportunity.] Sorry Jay. I am alternately grading papers and blogging and commenting...a terrible cognitive mix. for being intelligent. Let me bring one thing out here that is on my post...about the fish. But Jarvis and others have the same problem that everyone in the elite always has. It's like being a fish...you can't see the water. That's because it's your environment, it's what you know, it is completely attuned to your needs and you are attuned to its characteristics. But everyone who's not a fish...we can see the water. We can see who's in it, and we can see that we're not. In my business, the water could be called the "culture of power." Those who are in it can't see it because it is part of their being. But everyone else can. (For the scholars among you, see Lisa Delpit, "The Silenced Dialogue: Teaching Other People's Children," Harvard Educational Review, 1988. Delpit is fabulous, and won a MacArthur for her work on this.) Same with the blogosphere. The A-list linkers and the linked don't see that there's any other than this nifty, wide-open, democratic, citizen journalism thing. They're at the same conferences, and coming up with the answer for the next decade or two. They've never noticed who's NOT at the table...because, hey they're there. I am currently trying to teach future teachers about the role and obligation to offer instruction in how to live in a democracy. So questions about listening, about diverse voices, about teaching people the "culture of power" and how to use it, these things are on my mind a lot. This issue about blogging intersects with that. To be honest, I am not 100 percent sure how I feel about it. But I'm sorting out my ideas live, in comments and on my blog. Which is in itself an exciting and powerful thing to do. Everytime I write and get answers, I learn something and my ideas become more clear. Cool, huh? Oh yeah, one last thing, the aging white guy comment: You shouldn't take offense. Certainly I didn't mean it that way. All of us are what we are. If you're teaching a class on reading pedagogy for elementary school, you're probably in a place that's predominantly made up of young women. If you're in a school in Detroit, you're probably in a place that's predominantly populated by African-American children. Nothing offensive about it, it's just the way it is. The leading voices for citizen-blogging that I hear are Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, and Dan Gilmor. If there are others who are as vocal and as persistent, then I'm wrong, and you should correct me. But the room I see is predominantly populated by a similar gender and they share socioeconomic status. There's nothing wrong with that. I guess the conflict comes from the fact that--except for your work in wonderful posts like this one--what is the mechanism for ensuring that all voices truly get an equal chance to be heard? That is at the heart of democracy, the full airing of diverse ideas. That's why I mentioned the distribution aspect. Until that gets resolved somehow, the skirmishes over gender and diverse voices will erupt now and then. But I do feel bad that you took offense. Not my intention at all. Tim Schmoyer (Sisyphus) responded to the discussion at his blog: "Let's talk about inbound links, outbound links, traffic (visits and page views) and what a Blogiverse Portal and Awareness Tool might look like for a minute, shall we?" Hi Jenny... well, it might have something to do with the fact that it's the first time I have been designated with the adjective, "aging." But that was accurate, so I can't complain. You write: The members pride themselves on some kind of "blogging about ideas" which is sort of the internet version of the maligned "objectivity" in the MSM. Yet these guys write about themselves all the time. Their kids, their families, their commutes. Huh? I claim no mantle of objectivity (in fact I dislcaim it), nor do I understand how "blogging about ideas" connects to objectivity in the MSM, although I have my guesses what you're getting at there. I have never mentioned family or my kids at PressThink (except for my nephew who is part of the Brave New Net discussion) nor I have ever talked about a commute. But even if I had (Jeff Javis talks about his commute, his kids) so what? Is that worrisome? Bad-ass A-List behavior? JennyD: what is the mechanism for ensuring that all voices truly get an equal chance to be heard? That is at the heart of democracy, the full airing of diverse ideas. That's why I mentioned the distribution aspect. Be very careful here. Remedies can be controlling or liberating. In today's world, ironically, the controllers tend to offer liberalThink and those preferring liberating approaches, usually don't. Furthermore, the weapon of criticism here is the old-fashioned guilt trip -- no different than that of the activist-oppressed of the 1960s, hurled at anyone they wished to undermine. I value this post of Jay's because it offers links I was previously unfamiliar with. But like the other blogs I frequent, fresh links are offered with every post. But I don't buy either the criticism or PC remedies. The suggestion implies that prominent bloggers ought to use different criteria for what they present than that which they use now -- in other words, that what seems important to the blogger, really isn't as important as it seems. According to this argument, it isn't as important because what is important ought to meet particular, externally measurable criteria. What is ironic is that the very tool criticized and used to criticize is positively the most liberating and democratic tool ever invented. There are NO barriers to entry and EVERY idea has an opportunity to be examined and rejected or embraced -- including the concept that greater diversity should be encouraged. Fortunately, there is, as JennyD wishes, no mechanism for ensuring that all voices truly get an equal chance to be heard -- because the mechanism that ensures some voices get heard is a mechanism that ensures that some voices don't. This river is very wide and very deep. Trust to liberty, my friend, not equality. Stephen, you have hit the core of my class I teach--at least the topic at the moment. The tension between liberty and equality. It is a wonderful thing, and creates the very discussion we're having. Most often I come down on the side of liberty. But I am quite aware that we, as a society, create systems that prevent full liberty by some groups. (For a perfect example, note the public school system...but that's another discussion.) Here are some things to consider: what if voices remain unlinked and unloved in the internet because they say things that the big bloggers find to be uninteresting or unworthy? Are those voices truly that? What mechanism will sift through the voices and put out those for the rest of us to see--that is, those of us who don't have the time, or aren't paid to look for such things? (There was just a flap about Google News, I think, putting up a Nazi-leaning site but barring Powerline from their news list. These decisions will be made...decisions about who deserves to have their ideas heard.) Will those voice represent the broader community? Should they? Do we rely on the goodwill and conscience of distributors to do that? And what do we think about a medium that rewards "traditional literacy," that is, the ability to write well? That's been called elitist by some. I don't think it is, but it reminds me to continue to push for all students to become traditionally literate so they can participate in this brave new world. There is a lot of liberty in the blogosphere. And there is the possibility of inequality. Liberty is good, as long as structural inequality is minimized. Otherwise, it really isn't liberty. (Jay, and all, as an aside, writing here is MUCH more fun than grading papers.) What is ironic is that the very tool criticized and used to criticize is positively the most liberating and democratic tool ever invented. There are NO barriers to entry and EVERY idea has an opportunity to be examined and rejected or embraced -- including the concept that greater diversity should be encouraged. Of course there are barriers --- barriers of convention. People tend to link to sources of established credibility --- the disproportion of of "white males" on the op/ed pages results in more links to "white males", and the disproportion of "white males" in academia results in more links to "white males." And within the separate ideological spheres of blogdom, there is an assumption of credibility of the most "popular" bloggers who are disproportionately "white male" resulting in more links to "white males". A small but telling example. Americablog linked to a blog entry by Armando at Daily Kos about Cheney being critical of Tom Delay. Armando got his information from either a commenter or diarist whom he named, but didn't link to. In other words, the "obscure" person who discovered something noteworthy was taken "out of the loop" --- we get the "official" Daily Kos blogger's perspective on the facts, but not that of the "obscure" person who brought the facts to light. This is an extreme example of a significant phenomenon that occurs all the time -- Blogger X will link to "A-list" bloggers who have found something of interest from an "obscure" source. Usually, the A-list blogger will provide a link to the original source, but Blogger X leads you not to the original source, but to the source whose credibility/popularity is established -- and we get the A-List perspective on the information before we go to the original source (if we even bother to do so.) There is also the "convention wisdom" barrier. Women and minorities are probably far more likely to challenge the assumptions and premises of the dominant culture on a given issue. When someone views an issue from an alternate perspective, the information and ideas that are expressed are far less likely to be considered credible and/or valuable. The whole 'diversity in the blogosphere' discussion is a perfect example of this phenomenon, and your statement regarding the lack of barriers is a perfect example of 'conventional wisdom' of the "white male" dominated blogosphere that is being challenged by women and minorities. And I'm not picking on you here --- I do much the same thing myself. The minute I see the words "liberal media bias" I automatically doubt the credibility of the writer because he is writing from a different perspective. (and if someone mentions "Form 180" I just assume they are not credible ) "White males" seldom recognise the impact of "white maleness", because they've seldom (if ever) have experienced their ideas and opinions being dismissed or questioned because of their "white maleness." (and when their opinions are dismissed or questioned, its with reference to women and/or minority concerns that are dismissed by the "white male.") As a result, "white males" don't even see the barriers that women and minorities do. Posted by: p.lukasiak at April 3, 2005 12:12 PM | Permalink Of course they don't, but white males are not monolithic. There are only two categories in our ethnic group: successful and not. This is about credit. And that is hard to get in America. Try to publish a book the old fashioned way and you'll understand quickly. Everybody equal? No way they should be. Posted by: Andrew Yole at April 3, 2005 12:22 PM | Permalink The blog-diversity topic strikes me as a tar baby: a can't-win provocation in which we can wear ourselves out. Speaking personally, I think the people pitching this issue have failed to produce a convincing case for it. I think it limps along because people are generally concerned about being fair and inclusive, but also because we're afraid of being called names. As I understand it, I'm supposed to care about this because "we have a circle of bloggers we refer to and we link to and this can put them on the map and it's all too often -- white, male, American bloggers -- who get our attention." Or, as a commenter on Halley's site put it, "I only get about 180 readers a day. For all the writing I do and all the effort and time it takes, I wish I had more readers." That's probably a LOT more readers than I get, but that's beside the point: If the issue is traffic and personal glory, I'm not interested. And if the issue is the ability to speak and be heard, then I 'm unimpressed. If you want to be heard, then join the conversation. I'm not an A-List blogger and I have no desire to become an A-List blogger (being on the A-List is a lot of work, and most of us aren't really interested in quitting our day jobs), but that doesn't prevent me from commenting on PressThink and other media blogs. And voila: You're reading my "new voice." Nobody checked my credentials (or my race, religion, gender or sexual orientation) before granting me the right to express myself. You can always attract attention to yourself by picking a fight, and that's what this looks like to me. The Old School diversity template is a weak conceptual tool for working in this new medium. Posted by: Daniel Conover at April 3, 2005 12:53 PM | Permalink Jay, Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet at April 3, 2005 1:04 PM | Permalink When people ask questions like should "guys" have an "obligation to open their distribution to a wide variety of voices", and demand that "all voices truly get a chance to be heard", I can only think of Blogger Affirmative Action wherein the government, by court order, takes over our computers and "allows" us to read "diverse" blogs for X amount of hours before we are "allowed" to read what we want. How else would this "obligation" be fulfilled? Certainly not on a voluntary basis. The concept of "all voices" is mind-boggling. Who would decide what "voices" would be included? Women? Blacks? Hispanics? Bi-polar? What about the diabetic, Lutheran Eskimoes who suffer with ADD? Would they feel excluded? Does anyone really have time to make sure "all voices get a chance to be heard"? One note of irony----I happened upon JennyD's blog because I thought her comments were cogent, so I clicked onto her name on that aging white guy's blog a/k/a Pressthink. Posted by: kilgore trout at April 3, 2005 2:16 PM | Permalink JennyD: What mechanism will sift through the voices and put out those for the rest of us to see Editors. Many different editors from many different places. Don't like 'em? Become an editor. But to lecture editors to do it your way is... ah... hubris. JennyD: And what do we think about a medium that rewards "traditional literacy," that is, the ability to write well? That's been called elitist by some. And that "some" who have called it elitist have been called foolish by others. You're pushing a rope. You're consumed by secondary problems when the New York State standards struggle to even mention the word "think". Writing and thinking are inextricably intertwined. You need to read Richard Mitchell. Rather than where you're headed, best service people can offer is to help others become self-regulated learners so they can fend for themselves. Daniel: as a commenter on Halley's site put it, "I only get about 180 readers a day. For all the writing I do and all the effort and time it takes, I wish I had more readers." Although Confucius failed to convince the blog readers of his day, what he wrote touches me through 2500 years of history because he did, after all record it. Do it for yourself. The rest is gravy. And who knows what will happen over time. I wonder how much of this debate is based on journalists imbued in a social responsibility philosophy "guilt tripping" other journalists (of a different gender) with the same philosophy and advocating a social responsibility philosophy for all bloggers -- starting with A-listers? Is that part of it? I checked out the technorati 100---I'd never seen it before. There seemed to be an equal mix of left/right, but also many technogeek sites. Recently, there was a survey/study about who blogs and who reads blogs, and the overwhelming evidence pointed to the fact that bloggers and blog readers were young white males. The "consciousness-raising" folks have their work cut out for them. Posted by: kilgore trout at April 3, 2005 2:58 PM | Permalink Clearly guilt-tripping is part of the problem. But journalism and journalists--and by extension bloggers who embrace and preach the virtues of citizen journalism--set themselves up for it. When you claim to advocate for such basic, important values, and claim to do it on behalf of democracy itself...then you've bitten off a big bite. So, these claims have merit, but on the other hand, the key difference between traditional journalism and blogging is this...the discussion that we're having about it. Is there any empirical (or other) evidence that "exposure to a broad range of ideas from a variety of perspectives" really "broadens understanding"? Is this just PC cant? Do our kids, who have been exposed to PC since the 70's do better in math and science, in reading and writing, in anything, really, than before the PC revolution? How do we compare globally? Are the ACT test scores higher now than they were in the early 60's? Is this all just CW or are there facts to back it up? Posted by: kilgore trout at April 3, 2005 3:21 PM | Permalink re: the key difference Good point. When you claim to advocate for such basic, important values, and claim to do it on behalf of democracy itself...then you've bitten off a big bite. Yes, but isn't that the elitist arrogance inherent in social responsibility journalism? And yes, that can be misinterpreted like "aging-white-guy aura", but if that's your motivation, your lofty goal, it also has structure, biases and constraints. Let me dig deeper with a question. How well has the social responsibility philosophy in "old media" journalism met the goal of diverse voices? My concern is that the social responsibility model leads to discussions like this. Heat is generated, some feel better for feeling guilty and doing something to assuage thier guilt, others feel better for making them feel guilty and getting them to do something about it - something they wanted them to do. Perhaps, in the process, a little light is generated. Some awareness. But has anything of substance been accomplished? Will it stick? Or is it just that brief moment of patronizing a squeaky wheel and going back to business as usual? Would a different model, a different approach, a different philosophy and way of thinking about motivations create a more substantial effect? "How well has the social responsibility philosophy in "old media" journalism met the goal of diverse voices?" I think the record shows progress, that folks like you would gladly roll back. In fact that's why your bitching about it now. Posted by: Andrew Yole at April 3, 2005 3:58 PM | Permalink Shouldn't more A-list "progressives" like Duncan Black, Kos, and Josh Marshall be doing more to link to the "all voices" crowd? Posted by: kilgore trout at April 3, 2005 3:58 PM | Permalink Oh I get it! Halley's *Comment* like Halley's Jenny D wrote: But journalism and journalists--and by extension bloggers who embrace and preach the virtues of citizen journalism--set themselves up for it. When you claim to advocate for such basic, important values, and claim to do it on behalf of democracy itself...then you've bitten off a big bite. In that vein, let me issue my own challenge to the white women who appear to be carrying this torch: In the month of April, you are to go out and find 10 hispanic, black or Islamic bloggers who are willing to endorse white women as cultural victims on same scale as they perceive themselves to be. By the way, I'm not serious about this challenge -- I'm just being a smarty pants. My point: All these inequality positions are relative, and here on the internet they become abstract to the point of absurdity. We all have a stake in making sure everyone in America gets a real, fair, substantial shot at whatever they dream for themselves. But I think this time the conservatives have got the best perspective: This whole topic appears to be about giving some groups a boost, not about giving everyone a shot. And a shot is all any of us should be promised. Posted by: Daniel Conover at April 3, 2005 4:39 PM | Permalink you know, there are a lot of things mixed up in this discussion: technological limitations, gender, race, personal habits, systemic bias, responsibility, popularity, etc. I think it's worth noting that this discussion--or rather, this complaint--has existed since at least 2000. back then, the A-list consisted of Dave Winer + everyone who worked at Blogger, and everyone they dated. at the time, the A-list was about half women and half men. here is a famous blog entry on the subject from the time. that post resonated with a lot of people, and it riled a lot of people. the A-list felt it was entirely unjustified. most of the article is reflected in the discussion that is happening here, today. two myths: --systemic bias. as people are always quick to note, there isn't one: there are no gatekeepers here, so everyone is free to post what they like, and everyone is free to link to whomever they like. on the other hand: --some weblogs get A-list attention, and others don't. why? (since bloggers often point to posts they disagree with, it's not ideology, per se, that keeps other voices out of the game. is it they way people write about things that makes A-listers embrace or dismiss the writer? is it the frequency with which people write about things? what is the code?) --why is the current A-list composed mainly of men? why is that true now, when, in 2000, it was not so? --is it worth seeking out new voices, and different points of view? (you know, a lot of people read weblogs to have their existing POV reinforced.) there is clearly no question of "responsibility". everyone links to what they think is worthwhile. everyone has their daily round. everyone has limited time. every blogger links heavily to a consistent set of usual suspects. it's also true that most bloggers, A-listers included, from time to time link to new voices. there may be a question of hypocrisy when considering the linking choices made by the loudest proponents of "citizen media". there may be a question of quality--diverse perspectives tend to enrich understanding. this is an extremely complex situation. boys may link more often to boys; do girls link more often to the boys, too? do women (and minorities) need to learn to write in a particular manner to be linked by political (and technical) bloggers? will that dilute their voices? can outsiders maintain their unique perspectives *and* speak in the dominant, accepted voice, words and thoughts being so closely intertwined? I think it's important to note that 99% of all bloggers, male and female, minorities and white, are outsiders. non-English weblogs have even less of a chance of being linked. being an outsider is a universal condition, not one that is restricted to certain groups. Posted by: rebecca blood at April 3, 2005 4:56 PM | Permalink Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, Feb. 10: Markos Moulitsas, a San Francisco liberal who writes the popular Kos site, said of Gannon: "He has been extremely anti-gay in his writings. He's been a shill for the Christian right. So there's a certain level of hypocrisy there that I thought was fair game and needed to be called out." One might reasonably ask: which is it, Kos? A matter of justice (correcting for hypocrisy) or a matter of realpolitik (if that's what it takes...)? Is it not obvious that one is an excuse for the other? Beware this hypocrisy thing. It may have effects on the maker of the charge that the charger is unaware of. it is a strong term. there may be one that is more polite. what I meant was that those people who are most excited--and most vocal--about the ability of weblogs to give a voice to the masses, might be surprised to discover that their own amplification habits more closely reflect those of the media establishment than they realize. that these people have, perhaps, the greatest stake in creating a culture that seeks out and amplifies voices that traditionally have been on the fringe. I was not accusing anyone of malice, just inattention. (with regard to kos, his behavior was, to my eye, indistinguishable from the daily practices of the established press. the only distinction was that it was done by a blogger--so it fit well into the dominant media narrative/fear of "bloggers who work without editors and fact checkers". the question of when *anyone* should be reporting on an individual's private life is separate from the fact that this would have been unremarkable if traditional media had outed him.) Posted by: rebecca blood at April 3, 2005 6:17 PM | Permalink I've told Rebecca, Seth, Paul (and perhaps Jenny... hey, the gang's all here!) that I've been working on an extensive essay over the last few weeks which addresses many of the "gatekeeper" points that have been raised here and over the years. So keep yer collective pants on, and yer long tail to yer... umm, block that metaphor. I got interrupted from that writing when I read Jay's guidelines here for readers to submit tips. I have been thinking about this too in recent weeks, so today I wrote up a proposal The Tipster Network (1800 words) to spell out how we (we social media revolutionaries) can create a generalized system for doing this. In short, I propose simply tagging bookmarks in a service like del.icio.us, using pressthink as a tag, and this would serve as an open inbox. Read the document for more details. And regarding the latest exchange between Jay and Rebecca, as my Stuck at the Gates piece reported (which was linked here in PressThink), Kos didn't know about the research on Gannon on his own site till he read about it on Atrios-- and his "own" researchers weren't focusing on the gay angle. There's some very interesting developments in the ethical standards by these independent citizen-journalists, which I'll be reporting on this week. Posted by: Jon Garfunkel at April 3, 2005 7:22 PM | Permalink "I think it's important to note that 99% of all bloggers, male and female, minorities and white, are outsiders." Sure and 1 percent work for newspapers and magazines. That's about right. Not that many people get to do the work period. The fight for who gets to do it for free is wide open. Posted by: Andrew Yole at April 3, 2005 7:47 PM | Permalink I re-wrote this comment so it now looks like this. I am going to add it to my Q and A post that can be reached off the "About" Header. Some ways to earn a link from PressThink: * Link to a PressThink post and discuss it, or the issues raised in it, in an intelligent way. (The longer and more involved your post is, that's probably better. I link to added value.) * Write a post in PressThink's major areas of interest that gets other people talking, because it makes an original point or two, or strikes a compelling theme. The blogs I read regularly will link to it, and I will find it. * Offer a round-up post with a lot of links that acts as a handy discussion guide for an issue of interest at PressThink. Simple device. Very popular. In basketball we say: want the ball? Get a rebound! Here's someone who does it well. * Offer expertise where PressThink lacks it (like, say, an economist weighing in on the changing market for news, or a former editor at About.com speaking up about the company) and put it in your blog post. I will definitely link to that post because you just made PressThink a better blog. Get it? * Make one of PressThink's current obsessions (like de-certifying the press) a blogging interest of your own. * Criticize Rosen at your blog in an orginal, arresting and substantial (or entertaining) way. Or even better: criticize his ideas. Here's an example I should have linked to before. * E-mail me when you have a post that you think deserves to be part of PressThink. (Don't use this option unless you're grown up enough to realize it's a crap shoot, and I may not agree with you, or reply.) * I have very specific interests. They're not hard to figure out through the pleasurably simple method of reading PressThink over a stretch of time. * Post a link and an explanation for why it's related in the comments. Any abuse of that one gets deleted immediately. * By far the best way to be linked by PressThink is to join in the discussions going on across many posts and comment theads at www.pressthink.org, intersecting with the blogging world, intersecting with the news. * Participating, I grant you, is a demanding condition for a link. But that's my niche, I feel. PressThink is a demanding site. My hypothesis going in was: there's a demand for that. * Billy the Blogging Poet, reflecting on this post (following my first tip, above) said it well: "The number one tip I can give any of you aspiring big league bloggers (I’m one too) is that you must participate in the big conversation if you want to become a topic of the big conversation. Otherwise, you might as well not blog at all." * Alas, none of these are guaranteed. One might reasonably ask: which is it, Kos? A matter of justice (correcting for hypocrisy) or a matter of realpolitik (if that's what it takes...)? Is it not obvious that one is an excuse for the other? jay, there is a reason why "that is what it took" that you have missed. If the GOP had "planted" Mary Matalin's maid of honor in the White House press pool, everyone would have known that the person was Mary Matalin's best friend, there would have been no need for an investigation. But "Gannon" was a pseudonym for someone who refused to reveal his real name, who claimed to be a real journalist --- and a very quick check of his background showed that he had no journalistic background, and was connected to a highly partisan GOP website, and was plagarizing GOP press releases. In other words, "that's what it took" because Gannon was a liar who was pretending to be something that he wasn't --- and was nevertheless being given daily access to the White House. I would also suggest to you that Kurtz --- has been an ardent defender of Gannon, and that Kos was not asked a question using the word "retaliation." Finally, you are obviously unaware that Markos played almost no role in the Gannon investigations. Scores of Kos diarists and readers started spontaneously investigating the question "Who is Jeff Gannon" without any encouragement or involvement from Kos (indeed, although "Gannon" diaries were always on the recommended list, the investigation seldom if ever made it to the main diaries as the investigation was ongoing.) Bottom line here is that the "Gannon" investigation represents the best of the kind of things that can be achieved in the blogosphere --- a spontaneous grassroots co-operative effort to do the investigating and reporting that the mainstream media refused to do. Posted by: p.lukasiak at April 3, 2005 9:17 PM | Permalink JennyD: preach the virtues of citizen journalism and claim to advocate for such basic, important values There are a number of words I keep on the shelf and you seem to be using a bunch of them. Words like virtues and values are frequently ambiguous abstractions that have meaning for you but don't necessarily mean close to the same thing for others -- and, in fact, may not carry weight at all. Would those arguing blogging equality throw guilt on those who do not respond when someone takes the time to make a serious comment, or offer a constructive link to a different blogging reference? To the RH Pressthink Blog: Posted by: gobears at April 3, 2005 10:18 PM | Permalink The value of these types of conversations are that they are an opportunity for introspection and self awareness. For me, it is not about enforcing some rule, but to learn to recognize my own bias. We all have them. Since the issue came up I am thinking more about who I want to spend time reading, who I want to write about, WHAT I want to write about and who I want to link TO. It has made me more concious of what I want to support. It has asked me to try and filter my blog day through more than one lens. I'm learning more. Posted by: Nancy White at April 3, 2005 11:30 PM | Permalink Thanks, Nancy. "For me, it is not about enforcing some rule, but to learn to recognize my own bias." Hold it a minute there. Are you saying the fish can come to see the water she's swimming in? OK, here's another question: Does transparency reduce diversity? Specifically, in order to assess the ideas and writings without being influenced by the author's name, gender, ethnicity, ..., do the transparency acolytes play into the prejudices that create American-white-man-dominance syndrome? If a blogger you link to is anonymous, what does that mean for a blogger's "introspection and self awareness"? To the RH Sisyphus: Posted by: gobears at April 4, 2005 12:58 AM | Permalink I think this thread misses the point, with a bad question: No. I don't think so. For A-list bloggers what seems to matter the most is policy, as reflected in votes for politicians who get elected. The ideas linked to are linked because of their relation for or against some policy. This is a big audience, though likely not a majority -- all other niches are much smaller. And who "speaks" for blogs? This is more Jay's later point--a political fight for influence. Who goes to the conference? who gets a column in the local newspaper, in the NYT? The long-tail of blogs sort of consists of two groups based on their interest in policy, or not. The "not" group includes lots of folks interested in their own specialities, of which they have expertise, and if they write well and interestingly they get some standing in their niche. (I don't read these much. Prolly why I'm so boring.) The "policy" group (like my own under-read blog) is more like wannabee A-list. Wanting to write, and be read, and to affect others. Another disappointment with the PC diversity issue: where is the criteria about going to church regularly? One of the biggest culture war divides between believers and the secularists. LaShawn Barber will be getting LOTS more attention because she's black, and a woman who writes well. But she's deeply faithful, as well. Yet I think her fine writing is like Donald Sensing (white, male, pro-war pastor). Where is the notation of "mothers of two or more children"? It's an obvious demographic fact that current secular post-Christian civilization has severe sustainability issues because of two few children. It's very reasonable to note how important mothers are. LaShawn is unmarried and childless. Where are the women who do have multiple children? The Leftist bias in MSM is related to their lack of voices from religious folk and mothers; but seems also related to a lack of interest in abstract political policies by those groups. My final complaint about this thread is the lack of responsibility on the part of the non-A bloggers to get read. Glenn usually links to the Carnival of the Vanities (where I've submitted a few posts, but not too many); I also do some with the Carnival of Christian Blogs (ditto); and the Watcher of Weasel's list (ditto). The last is a group of 13 "Council Members" (recently a vacancy was there), who agree to read and rate submissions every weak. And I want to get read, but not enough to do the MARKETING work of submitting posts; I'd guess lots of non-A bloggers are similar. LaShawn has written on how she DOES do the marketing. I've looked at a few of the blogs listed; I thank you for the links. But my own time is running out... what policy do they support or oppose, and why? (I'm a Michael J Totten addict because his posts make me want to add something to an already cogent note.) Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at April 4, 2005 6:45 AM | Permalink Good insight into an ideological warrior's mind: Truth? Who knows where the truth lies. "My own time is running out... what policy do they support or oppose, and why?" Jay...that's it. The whole point of this discussion is not to make causal claims about who did what, or why someone doesn't do something, or are diverse voices being left out. It's about remembering to see the water. The more I think about it, the less concerned I am about this...largely because a controversial idea generates so much heat and light on blogs. The more light, the better. But it's the debate that matters, and through it, the people willing to learn can see the water. Thank you for creating a place for this grand idea-fest to take place. I find it quite nourishing and invigorating. And between postings, I actually graded all the papers.... On March 22nd I wrote a very short piece, Why art? To understand why art is important, take a trip to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, stay there for a day or two, then walk out. Unbeknowst to you, while camping beside the rushing water, the white noise of the Colorado cleanses the filters you didn't know had clogged your hearing. Walking up, away from the sound of the river, the quiet is no longer quiet. At each step, crunching of sand and gravel underfoot develops color, overtones, depth, and duration. What had wasted away, has come alive. That is why art. Art cleanses filters. It reminds us, if only for a moment, that we are alive. Put value on that.Please don't strain to see the water. Relax and enjoy what surrounds you that you are prepared to see. Once ready, should you happen to stumble over something meaningful, your awareness will blossom naturally. People who try to hard to raise their consciousness -- or the consciousness of others -- are more likely to give themselves a hernia than be successful. Being at one with the world is not the trying to be, but rather the being itself. To phrase it another way, don't get your knickers in a twist. Jay, re: outgoing links You may already be aware of this, and I know this isn't everything you want, but ... Blogshares:PressThink:Outgoing Links Your feedback on what helps/is needed would be appreciated. Wow. That site is surreal to me. I have to say I don't understand it. Perhaps you or others could explain what the "market" piece of it is all about. What kind of report am I seeing? I see the list of outgoing links. Yes, that's a start on it. But of course I want them to reflect frequency. Consider: the first time I link to something is important. I want a way to note that too. My most frequent link out is probably Howard Kurtz. But it could be Jeff Jarvis. Or Ed Cone. Point is, such a list tells you about PressThink and its conversational "field." So I want to display my list of who I'm especially talking to these days on the right side of my current format. Live. Ultimately it has to be a plug in for MT 3 if it's going to actually work for PressThink as it stands today. My "recommended" list is one measure of what I recommend. My linking out is another, as yet undeveloped. So, geeks, The Linking Field. Who can light it? Certainly Tim's fascinating post, and this one, are something. I admit I don't fully understand what. I'm not a geek, I just depend on them to make more things possible online. Jay, re: explain what the "market" piece of it is all about I'm not a player, so my understanding of the "game" is limited. Very high level: it's a fantasy market game. There is a brief about page. The valuation of your blog is based on the value of your incoming links, or in other words, the value of another blog's outgoing link to you. An outgoing link's value is calculated as (stats): f() = ($1000 + Value of Blog) / (Total number of outgoing links) Using your blog as an example ... The Blogshares spider found 761 blogs linking to you. It calculated the sum of the values of each link to you, giving PressThink a valuation of B$271,482.46. This also gives you market share: Market Share: The percentage of all links in the BlogShares system which are coming into this blog.You have 39 outgoing links. When you link to another blog, you raise their value, according to the formula above, B$6,963.65. To give you a bracket comparison, when I link to you, I raise the value of your blog a whoppping B$138.82. You can look at your incoming links to see the value of the blogs linking to you. Blogshares does not count links to non-blogs, so Howard Kurtz would not show up. Jay, thanks for the feedback. I came up with two quick preference questions: 1. What is the longest time period you would be interested in seeing this link information? A month? A year? The life of the blog? 2. Does the tool need to show all links, distinguish between blogs and non-blogs, or just show other blogs? All links, with the ability to break out blogs and non-blog sources. If it's only blogs that are tracked, that has some value, but not the same. Longest.. hmmm. It's hard to tell for certain but I would think yearly would make some sense. Jay, the easiest way to count and categorize your outgoing links is to have that capability embedded in your blog software. I'm not as familiar with the plugins for Moveable Type as for Word Press (which is open source), but a quick search didn't turn up quite what you want as a prepackaged capability. Shouldn't be hard to implement, though - a search on the html tag for linking would do it. You might start by contacting (or having your technical support person contact) the MT community to see if one exists of if anyone is interested in writing one for general use. Posted by: Robin Burk at April 4, 2005 5:05 PM | Permalink Thanks Jay, Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet at April 4, 2005 5:10 PM | Permalink Your advice meets with what I have been told, Robin. Doesn't seem to exist, wouldn't be hard to create, someone's probably done it. I am quite sure that's true. I just haven't had the time to devote to this yet, so it remains a "concept" I talk about. The Linking Field. When PressThink undergoes its first overhaul, I was going to ask for it to be built into the software, in the manner you suggest. What do you think... good open source project for someone? Create a blogging tool. I can't be the only one who would find uses for it. I was in that room; I was even at the table; I even spoke now and then. I'm female, I blog, and some people even read my blog. Diverse, you say, you want diverse? I'm gay. I'm short. I'm lefthanded. I'm a librarian. I'm middle-aged. I'm a veteran. I thought I was about as niche a blogger as anyone could imagine cavorting among the Blogarati at Hahhhhhhvahhhhd, but apparently I'm too small a wig for Halley to bother mentioning. I would blog this, but I don't want to give her any more Google-juice. Posted by: K.G. Schneider at April 4, 2005 6:09 PM | Permalink Karen: Halley was talking about a different conference at Harvard, similar theme, and some of the same people. Here's the participants list. I don't believe there was any snub intended. Feel free to jump into the conversation. Jay, re: a plugin for characterizing the outbound links in posts & comments: a separate version would be needed for Moveable Type, Word Press and any other blogging platform. Any programmers reading this and have a little free time? I skimmed through the MT application programming interface ... PERL and a little regex familiarity should make this fairly straightforward. Jay, I have less than zero free time right now but if no one takes this on before June I'll try to find time to take a stab at it for you when my term and a conference presentation are over. Or you might find a comp sci student at NYU who's willing to spend a weekend on it. Word Press is written in php / SQL if anyone wants to take on the effort of writing a plugin for that platform. Posted by: Robin Burk at April 4, 2005 8:18 PM | Permalink I think I found something you can use as a start on PressThink. LinksMentioned perl script (latest version) is here. Usage: <ul> LinksMentioned also available through six apart. To the RH Blog: Posted by: gobears at April 4, 2005 11:15 PM | Permalink current estimates place the number of blogs at 8 million. Posted by: rebecca blood at April 5, 2005 12:49 AM | Permalink For those of you who would like to have a simple way to subscribe to all of the blogs Jay (and Lisa?) nominated in your RSS reader, I've put together this OPML file of all of the blogs. Most RSS readers allow you to import an OPML file that contains a list of RSS feeds. One interesting thing I probably wouldn't have noticed unless I did this was that 11 of the blogs didn't have RSS 2.0 feeds available. This is probably because many of them are on Blogger or MT, neither of which offer RSS 2.O out of the box. Posted by: Lisa Williams at April 6, 2005 11:36 PM | Permalink |
|
Print![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://archive.pressthink.org/nav-commenters.gif)
