trying to understand the blogging backlash

Here’s the conundrum. Why do people bother criticizing blogs when nobody forces anybody to read them?

Liz Ditz hit the nail on the head when she wrote this:

“To be fair, there are a lot of blogs, often including this one, that are of interest only to those who write them and a few others. I just thought of another analogy: most photographs are bad, and few are of interest to anyone but the photographer.  Do we then smash all the cameras?  Ridicule the art of photography?”

I can understand how it can be annoying when blogs are over-represented in search engine results, particularly Google. If I’m looking for information, I want the good stuff, the most authentic sources and most authoritative opinions, not the musings of a well-connected blogger who happily admits to knowing nothing about the subject. That said, sometimes the false blog hits lead to the good stuff, or least give clues on how I can improve my search strategy.

The type of blogs which seemed the most odious to Blaise Cronin (please excuse this second post mentioning him, but writing it will help me get this out of my system) are personal LiveJournal blogs. It is a myth that LiveJournal people are mostly exhibitionists, who delight in baring their souls and airing their dirty laundry before the whole world. In my experience, most LiveJournal blogs are deliberately set up to repel the robots/spiders of search engines. The meaning of this is that many LJ bloggers don’t want to be found in Google and prefer not to be read by the Blaise Cronins of this world.

Because of this, and because most LiveJournal diary-style entries contain few links, which are so important to search engines, I highly doubt that Blaise Cronin has had too many of his searches clogged up by LiveJournal type blogs.

If so, then what is his problem?

Is he just being mean-spirited or snobbish to criticize so vehemently amateur bloggers whom he would actively need to seek out to read? Remember that he called these blogs narcissistic and banal and sententious drivel before bloggers started criticizing him. I wish he would admit that that was not a shining example of civil discourse.

Is he somehow threatened by the ability of the great unwashed masses to communicate their thoughts, unmediated by the traditional gatekeepers of publishers and editors (and sometimes, librarians)?

Blogs are a levelling force in discourse. If one looks at academic credentials, I am a nobody when compared with Blaise Cronin, yet I am able to challenge his opinions via the blog medium. He might not listen or respond, but at least I have been able to state my disagreement in the public forum that is the internet. If Blaise Cronin had written something which had really annoyed me back in 1990, what recourse would I have had then? Not being an academic, it is extremely unlikely that I could have had my opinions published in an academic journal. Maybe if I was lucky, a letter to the editor in the university’s newspaper, and who would have read that?

I can see why he wouldn’t like blogs if this technology has the ability to breach some of the protections provided by the ivory tower.

In the blogosphere as I understand it, people generally do not defer to anyone, irrespective of their academic or political accomplishments. In my idealized view of the blogosphere, it doesn’t matter who you are, only what you say. It does not matter if Blaise Cronin has written hundreds of books and is considered to be a very smart guy, if he says something stupid on the blogosphere, anyone can call him on it, including his worst former student.

Is this necessarily a good thing? No, I can imagine situations where this will cause problems, where we might wish that there was more deference. But on the whole, who really believes that broader participation in public discourse is a bad thing? Well, those who had a more privileged position beforehand, they wouldn't be so thrilled about the idea. The key thing is that there is no stuffing this genie back into its bottle. All  we can do is accept the changes and adapt to them.

Comments

[zoltara]

Here's a thought. If someone wrote a controversial article in 1990, what you would have done would be disucss it with your classmates/colleageus. The author would have most likely never heard about the conversation.

If you think about it, most blogs are similar to having a (albeit mostly one-sided) conversation with some friends. In general, only a few people read a blog. Except for the most wildly popular ones, most bloggers would be thrilled to have a few dozen consistent readers.

The difference is that nobody tapes conversations with friends, and the Internet archives everything we say. The difference is that Cronin can now Google his name with "asshat" and come up with responses. The difference is that technology has left him behind and it scares him.

[Angel]

A conversation, that is such a nice and perfect image of what it is many bloggers do. A conversation with friends out there in cyberspace (or at least, you hope they are friendly). Actually, the image of conversation is a very academic thing also. When I used to teach composition, I would tell my students that their research papers would be part of an academic conversation. They had to listen in (research), then think what to say (reflect on what they found), and then say it (write the paper and publish it, well, turn it in at least). Of course, then I would reply to their paper, adding to that conversation. Dialogue and conversation are still powerful forms of learning, which then surprises me that Dean Cronin feels so threatened by it. Maybe someone needs to remind him that it is a conversation, and there are many conversations. You don't have to listen to all of them. You go with the ones that interest you, and you say something when you can. Preferably you keep it civil while you are it. Anyhow, just an idea.

[Sherri]

What a fascinating addition to the ongoing conversation about weblogs! I have one of those little weblogs no one but a few see, and I keep it with the major purpose of talking to the world and listening to see if it answers. Most people who keep a personal journal/opinion site eventually touch on the "Why I keep this thing" question. I think it allows a person to look at themselves closely, if they are inclined to look at all.

As for search results -- I often check my referrals to see how people find my site. I have published a variety of useful and useless things over the years, but I'm constantly surprised at how various search engines interpret what I say to answer searches. It can be highly entertaining. I research quite a bit online as well, and I've had to learn to refine my search techniques because of how the search engines work. When I can't find what I want, or I doubt the veracity of what I find, however, I've always assumed it was a fault in either my search criteria, or perhaps in the search engine I used. I never once thought to blame those who wrote online about things I wasn't looking for, just as, if I pulled the wrong encyclopaedia volume down, I wouldn't blame it for not having my topic between its covers.

[morgan]

Thanks for these insightful comments. It's very interesting how different people have different backgrounds when it comes to blogging. My background is more as a writer, and so the idea of blogging as conversation isn't something I'd really thought about before. For me, it's not something which comes naturally, either in this blog or my LJ, so it's a good thing to think about & work on.

[liz]

Hi, thanks for the mention.

The recent conference for women, BlogHer, had a lot of discussion on what are blogs for, anyway? You might find the discussion interesting.

The easiest way to find the BlogHer conversations is from the Technorati tags,

blogher
bloghercon
dailyblogher