The Meaning Of Blogging
Andrew Orlowski kindly quotes my post "Blogging, Democratic Convention, and Reaction" in The Register article "Blogging 'cruelty' allegations rock post-DNC calm", for example:
The DNC breakfast illustrates that it's a vicious fight out there, and to survive, it isn't enough to define yourself by the tool you use. Seth Finkelstein sums up the gaucheness of the hopeful WiFi militia when he wrote,
The blunt question of readers is always 'Why should I read you?. They're asking, what power and influence do you have, what intellectual worth do you possess, what is your place in the social hierarchy? It's not impressive to answer: "Because I am a unique and special snowflake".
This will not increase my popularity with the A-list :-).
In general, in the aftermath of all the articles about whether there was a "Blogging breakthrough" or not, I've seen many go-arounds of the basic "Is it a floor wax or a dessert topping?" (both!) argument about The Meaning Of Blogging. The problem is that this argument tends to switch back and forth between two different tracks:
There's a path which runs along the lines:
1) Blogging is your own unedited voice, your personal spin, the perspective you, yes, you, bring to the universe ...
Problem: Well, generally, who in the world cares about anyone else's little spin or perspective, beyond a few friends or fans (the exceptions being extremely rare)? Why should ordinary people spend so much time writing and reading other writers, except as a hobby? And if it's just a personal hobby, in the same sense as bird-watching or train-spotting, why should anyone care outside of the other fellow-hobbyists?
[So, in response to this difficulty, advocates want to reach for a higher social purpose. Which yields:]
2) Blogging is citizen journalism, it is We The Media, it is Emergent Democracy, it is the reworking of society itself ...
Problem: But that sure looks like the same-old same-old in practice, a handful of A-listers having the audience and being gatekeepers, and now without even a figleaf of journalistic standards for justification. So why should anyone care that some pundits and want-to-be-pundits are fighting over the very few available spots? Evangelism to the contrary, either you're a part of that network, with all its clubby incestuousness and tribal rivalries, or you're the equivalent of a guy standing on a soapbox ranting to passers-by, for all the effect you'll have.
[Switch! Go back to #1 - blogging is you, yes you. Maybe you like standing on a soapbox and ranting, some people do enjoy doing that.]
[Eventually, jump out of the loop, to:]
3) Blogging is undefinable, ineffable, outside of time and space. No judgment can be made, because there are no rules to it besides the rules we each make.
[Basically, shut up and stop thinking about it]
Playing a shell game with these argument-tracks leads only to distraction (and calling me names will not make the issues go away).
By Seth Finkelstein | posted in cyberblather | on August 06, 2004 12:09 AM (Infothought permalink) | Followups
Well, the weird thing is that when all was said and done, people responded to my blog as if it were #1 -- my hobby. I'm not just a hobbyist though, I'm someone who has been tracking the library field online for almost a decade, has certain pet topics I try to track down good information on, and have a measured tone and a sense of humor that people like. You choose which media to read by which has a certain "spin" why would reading content online be any different? If some friend of mine went someplace I couldn't or wouldn't go, sure I'd love to read about it.
Then again, maybe I'm just fooling myself and I'm just guilty of being a #2 gatekeeper. It sure doesn't seem that way since I didn't know most of the people at the DNC before I got there and they sure didn't know me.
I'll say it again: blogging for me isn't journalism. And yet, it is some sort of writing. Lots of what is in the paper isn't strictly objective journalism, yet if it plays in the NY Times or in the Register somehow it's more valid [or vetted] than what bloggers are writing? Plus there's a cross-linking element that you still don't see in most standard media [how many news articles do you read in traditional media outlets with any more product links than one to the product or person being described?] which makes it a horse of a different color.
At the end of the day, I guess I don't care much what it is, for my own personal edification. I don't need to get a degree in blogging, I'm not in academia, and I'm not really dabbling in the medium. Personally the "unique snowflake" answer is my favorite, but I guess that one doesn't count.
"to live outside the law, you must be honest..." -Dylan
Blogging is the reality behind the "news", the honesty that is the individual, who is the true reality behind the manufactured and manipulated surface cover of the certfified perspective of the ruling class and their pocket media outlets.
Blogging is ... the true reality behind the manufactured and manipulated surface cover of the certfified perspective of the ruling class and their pocket media outlets...
Again this displays a lot of wishful thinking. For example, in what way is Seymour Hersh, who at the New Yorker has revealed the mechanics of the Office of Special Plans, the sanctioning of Gitmo-style interrogations, and the Hobbesian philosophy espoused by the OSP, not "reflecting reality"?
I suspect that in your desire to bind authenticity to a specific tool, you leave yourself no other conclusion. But this is silly, most people don't think like this, and it's precisely the trap I describe.
There's good and bad, but no magic light sabres here.
Blogging is ... the true reality behind the manufactured and manipulated surface cover of the certfified perspective of the ruling class and their pocket media outlets...
Again this displays a lot of wishful thinking. For example, in what way is Seymour Hersh, who at the New Yorker has revealed the mechanics of the Office of Special Plans, the sanctioning of Gitmo-style interrogations, and the Hobbesian philosophy espoused by the OSP, not "reflecting reality"?
I suspect that in your desire to bind authenticity to a specific tool, you leave yourself with no other conclusion. But this is silly. Most people believe such reasoning to be absurd, and it's precisely the trap I describe.
There's good and bad, but no magic light sabres here.
Not to go snowflake on you, but my personal take on blogging and living (and I can still tell the difference, though it's growing increasingly more subtle) is that meaning is ascribed, not inherent. The meaning of blogging? Reminds me of the psychiatrist's adage: Anyone who ponders the meaning of life is by definition mentally ill. Don't think, just blog, or whatever the hell else you do in your own snowy little world. My own blog probably has less than a dozen readers and still it gives me immense satisfaction to know somebody is reading my political/social/left-wing/pinko-commie ranting. I think I can speak for snowflakes everywhere in saying that it kinda sucks if no one looks to see if you really ARE unique. So rack me for door #3, maybe a touch lighter on the metaphysics.
This reminds me of the Pixies song, "Where Is My Mind?"
Don't think, just blog...
I think we have enough mindless blogging already - in the hope that the "hive mind" / "collective consciousness" will provide a kind of safety net.
Blogging as therapy? As ego gratification? By all means, go ahead. But if you're trying to persuade us that your brand of therapy is overthrowing the media, or actively curing deep social and political problems, when the evidence doesn't support such claims - then don't surprise if we blow you a raspberry back. It's nothing personal.