How the Quirks of Blogging Alter Public Discourse
Conventional wisdom has it that new communication media sometimes have unanticipated effects on public discourse. Television, for example, made it more important to be pretty, helping Kennedy defeat Nixon. The teleprompter made smooth, engaging delivery more important than comprehension of the text, allowing Reagan to be "the great communicator." (Or the "great" "communicator", anyway...)
What does blogging do? Lots of things. Though the claim seems currently out of favor, I still think that it contributes to cyberbalkanization. But that's old news. It seems to promote the "rant" at the expense of thoughtful posts. Perhaps these things help make bloggers and their readers more partisan. Dunno. Empirical question.
But what I've been thinking about recently is this: blogging puts pressure on you to post, even when you don't have anything worth writing. If you don't post frequently, people won't read you. That's bad for those who are in it for the attention, but it's also bad for those who are in it for more admirable reasons. If you think you have the occasional good idea, and you'd like to get it out there into the public mind, then you need to get people reading your blog. To get people to read your blog, you need to post regularly. Nobody has ideas all the time. So in order to get your good ideas out there, you might need to post mediocre ideas with some regularity.
But you can't just post crappy posts and expect people to read them. So you try to snazz 'em up. You don't post dumb ideas intentionally, of course, but you grasp for something semi-quasi-decent, and try to make it passably good. Problem is, a bad or mediocre idea dressed up to seem good can harm the thinking of those who are kind enough to read your ramblings in the first place. And it's not that they're not smart enough to see through bad ideas, but remember you've gained their trust to some extent, and remember that you've dressed the idea up so that it might look good enough to sneak its way into someone's mind if they're not paying close attention.
Anyway, I think this pressure--the pressure to always have something to say--is a notable force in the blogosphere. That's just a hypothesis, of course, and it could very well be wrong.
Incidentally, when I don't have anything to say, I just try not to post. Just so you know.
Conventional wisdom has it that new communication media sometimes have unanticipated effects on public discourse. Television, for example, made it more important to be pretty, helping Kennedy defeat Nixon. The teleprompter made smooth, engaging delivery more important than comprehension of the text, allowing Reagan to be "the great communicator." (Or the "great" "communicator", anyway...)
What does blogging do? Lots of things. Though the claim seems currently out of favor, I still think that it contributes to cyberbalkanization. But that's old news. It seems to promote the "rant" at the expense of thoughtful posts. Perhaps these things help make bloggers and their readers more partisan. Dunno. Empirical question.
But what I've been thinking about recently is this: blogging puts pressure on you to post, even when you don't have anything worth writing. If you don't post frequently, people won't read you. That's bad for those who are in it for the attention, but it's also bad for those who are in it for more admirable reasons. If you think you have the occasional good idea, and you'd like to get it out there into the public mind, then you need to get people reading your blog. To get people to read your blog, you need to post regularly. Nobody has ideas all the time. So in order to get your good ideas out there, you might need to post mediocre ideas with some regularity.
But you can't just post crappy posts and expect people to read them. So you try to snazz 'em up. You don't post dumb ideas intentionally, of course, but you grasp for something semi-quasi-decent, and try to make it passably good. Problem is, a bad or mediocre idea dressed up to seem good can harm the thinking of those who are kind enough to read your ramblings in the first place. And it's not that they're not smart enough to see through bad ideas, but remember you've gained their trust to some extent, and remember that you've dressed the idea up so that it might look good enough to sneak its way into someone's mind if they're not paying close attention.
Anyway, I think this pressure--the pressure to always have something to say--is a notable force in the blogosphere. That's just a hypothesis, of course, and it could very well be wrong.
Incidentally, when I don't have anything to say, I just try not to post. Just so you know.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:57 AM
6 Comments:
You're general point seems clearly right. The same thing affects TV. Multiply the number of channels and you create pressure to fill up all that time with something, which usually turns out to be crap. Certainly the 24 hour news cycle has, over time, sent the crap index through the roof. (Thank God the Michael Jackson trial is over!) Aside from cases where blogging has become some person's primary mission in life, my sense is that it takes a community to create a sustainable blog that has a good, fresh content on a regular basis.
The Rev.
I hear you, WS. I originally revived my blog for longer pieces that would take up too much space in the Raptor comments section. I much prefer the give and take of discussions, tho 'round here I seem to do more of the taking. ;-)
Very disturbing is this, which maintains the purpose of the blog is to rant and/or rally the faithful, since meaningful discourse is useless with idiots like me.
The elevation of the thumos to man's telos, and the death of inquiry if not philosophy, I think.
I think the "latest comments" feature would be an ideal addition to your blog.
I think it would encourage interest in longer comment threads and it can keep some of your better posts from falling into the abyss.
tvd: well, it's Leiter. Whaddayagonnado? That's a guy I don't really understand.
Duke: Good point. I keep meaning to upgrade this site so it looks purdy and such. That's a substantive change that might get me offa my e-butt.
To second the Duke of Prunes, an active discussion on the comment section gives people something to look for between posts. Making Light is the best example of this I know.
However... You speak of blogging as if it were a monoloith. Yes, there are a lot of political bloggers, but there are also penty of bloggers who don't write regularly about politics but are well worth reading, assuming you are interested in their subject matter.
Additionally, weblogs exist as a way to improve one's writing skills, following the maxim that the only way to become a better writer is to write.
I cannot live on political weblogs alone, but that's just me.
I've read that Leiter link twice now and I don't see why anyone would be upset by it. He's laying out what is his intention in blogging, but he's not saying that is the only reason or way to blog. And I couldn't find where he uses the word "idiot"--theclosest I found was intellectual lightweights with trite opinions, and limited analytical skills, take offense when I make it all too clear what the answers to the easy questions are. Many of these folks are no doubt honest, well-intentioned, decent people, who have been led down unhappy paths by circumstances or indoctrination. It is an important question, far beyond my ken, what can be done to set them straight. But it is not the aim of this blog to do so.
As far as I can tell, he only allows comments on certain posts, so he's obviously not interested in Philosoraptor style exchange. But that's his prerogative and this is hardly in a league with LGF or the Freepers. I simply don't see any basis for taking offense.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home