Russell Beattie thinks I don't understand his comments about Andrew Orlowski. I misread something (actually, I confused two ideas, because I was talking on the phone and writing at the same time) and I am sorry for having misrepresented his opinion. But, if I read his comments on my posting correctly, Russell also sees exactly the same phenomenon -- increased links -- that he said Orlowski eschews, whenever Orlowski links to him. Orlowski is in the game for traffic, for readers. He has to be to keep his job.
Russell says Orlowski is a "good guy" and I am sure he is, but that doesn't mean he isn't self-interested or that his enthusiasm for deflating hype isn't sometimes taken to extremes for rhetorical reasons that undermine the value of his critique. Everyone, including me, is a mixed source of fact, thought and opinion, sometimes making good points and sometimes bad. This is true in journalism (been there, do that) and blogging (been there, do that, too). If Orlowski is a "good guy" because he drives traffic to Russell's site and that suffices as a measure of his reliability, then Russell reads unreflectively. This "new medium" isn't a whole lot of good if readers are simply looking at it as a benign channel for finding stuff to read -- ferchrissake, learn to read blogs critically or we'll all be as cowed by the waves of additional information flowing through blogs and wikis and the Net in general as we are by the "mass" media.
Anyhow, here's the exchange about this posting, in which I apply precisely the idea I was introducing into the discussion, that people who show up and crap all over a site are best replied to (I don't like comment postings that denounce other people's work or my own with a single expletive and no thoughtful discussion -- I'm free not to like it and to, when it appears on my site, take it on as completely, intelligently and entertainingly as possible, which is also what Orlowski tries to do with his work, too):
Russell writes: What self serving crap. I don't link to Scoble because he doesn't ever have an original content worth linking to. If he said something interesting, maybe, otherwise I can get my M$-oriented BS from lots of places.-Russ
Posted by Russ at October 9, 2003 01:06 AMI replyRussell, you use the word "crap" rather than dissecting and providing a critique that can be responded to. Who is self-serving? Me? Scoble? You? Also, "self-serving" is hyphenated. Get your crap right, at least.
You look for content in links, not the thoughts about content from the bloggers you count on? How then, do you judge the value of blogger as a filter? Purely on what they point to? Fine, if that's the case, read a newspaper. My consumption of blogs is predicated on a very different standard: What the blogger adds to my perspective, by challenging my assumptions and by supporting my assumptions mindlessly, which allows me to reflect on my thinking rather than see them as crap dealers.
I'll follow up on your other posting here, too -- I think it is you that didn't make yourself clear about Orlowski, because you seemed to be making the point I was agreeing with rather than my having intentionally misrepresented your point.
Regardless of your feelings about Orlowski, whom I've lambasted and praised more than a couple times, do you have something to say besides "this is crap?" in regards to things you don't agree with? I mean, seriously, how about actually discussing the point I made instead of using my site to hurl shit? I've always thought your blog quite good, usually well-reasoned.
Mitch
Posted by Mitch Ratcliffe at October 9, 2003 06:47 AM
Now, does Russell get his back all up and lash back, does he stop reading me because I'm an "asshole"? Well, after having been a journalist and writer for a couple decades, frankly, I don't give a damn. He's one reader out of many thousands and I'll pick up five who just enjoy this posting (just as Orlowski does, ultimately competing for a share of the Regiter's traffic). However, when he shows up here or refers to this blog, he can expect a ration of debate rather than someone who sits by and lets him express his disgust without contributing any ideas or clarity to the discussion. That's the essence of the debate about a "new kind of democracy" that, regardless of their wealth, privilege or lack thereof, people recognize in the Net -- everyone can be heard here, even if you don't work for a major Web site. People see that and do hope too much for change; to effect change, we actually have to work at it, beginning with a full civil discourse and not falling back on "that is crap" as a meaningful critique of other people's ideas. It's handy as a filter, but it assumes some people and their ideas are never worth shit, and that way lies prejudice and totalitarianism, because pretty soon you've got armies lined up on one side or the other of the crap line.
Would I delete the comments? No, because people are free to say what they have to say about the topic at hand. If you post ads for Viagra, however, expect your comments to be deleted. Now, I think I'll get some coffee, as I'm already in a bad mood.
Wow! Go baby go! Let's see... YOU misrepresent my clearly stated comments on another blog and THEN you try to take me to task for not being nice about it? (And then say it was really my fault anyways because I wasn't clear... Oooookay.) Guess what? "Critically reading blogs" doesn't mean multitasking while you blather online. You got it wrong, too bad you won't admit it.
Now, with that off my chest, sorry, I didn't mean to come rant on your weblog before I had my morning coffee. Scoble just annoys me, I should've held back on that comment (he's self-serving not you, though I wonder why you took such offense to it.).
One last thing before I forget this thread, "crap" is a very descriptive and concise word for much of what's in the blogosphere. Sorry if it doesn't meet your intellectual standards for discourse.
Buh-bye now.
-Russ
Posted by: Russ at October 9, 2003 10:04 AMRuss,
Dude, how is "I misread something (actually, I confused two ideas, because I was talking on the phone and writing at the same time) and I am sorry for having misrepresented his opinion" not an admission that I made a mistake? At the same time, my reading of you posting is that it does all have to do with the volume of traffic somebody drives. So, I'd only ask that you reflect on that.
Do I read and talk on the phone? Yes, and I also said I and everyone else make some mistakes, which is WHY we need to read critically. I'm not holding myself up as a model to anyone (God forbid I become any kind of example to others), so don't take swipes at me after I admit a screw-up. The idea of discourse is that is polite, even when it is energetic -- real understanding and real community and real democracy come out fo conflict, but not unfair jabs. So, yes, as the host (literally, as this site resides on my server), I do insist you play nice.
On the issue of whether you read reflectively, you didn't answer my question: How do you judge the value of a blogger -- so far, you are only on the record as saying you like bloggers or journalists who drive traffic, and that's not a misrepresentation.
No offense taken about the self-serving thing -- I just want to have clear statements to respond to.
And, yes, crap describes a lot of every media, not just blogging. If we talked more about why it is crap, by fact-checking and offering alternative views, we'd be better off in the spirit I was talking about here. Society is a really big organization, a network of organizations where dialogue creates improvements or, at least, better decisions.
So, in the spirit of blogging as doing email in public, back at you for your considered reply....
Best,
Mitch