Doc Searls on blogging vs. journalism
November 8 2005
After the recent Forbes:
Attack of the Blogs article,
the blogosphere exploded in discussion
about the article. Perhaps this was Dan
Lyons intended effect after
all, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Ten days
later, the hue and cry has mostly passed, though I am still getting pings
and mails ("Did you know you were in Forbes magazine?"). At
this point, while I don't think my dad has seen it yet, a lot of
others have. There have also been some interesting comments about
the print
edition , the criticism
of the Lotus
community, and a notable omission.
The various blogs covering the story included Doc
Searls. He and I had
an offline e-mail conversation about the story, and about his collection
of links, which included many other blogs--but initially not mine. Searls
graciously updated his
links to include my blog entry.
In his e-mail back to me, he wrote:
I think there is also something about blogging that gets scant credit: provisionalism. Non-finality. While conventional journalism tends to be homiletic and conclusive ("this is so, and I've done the research to prove it"), blogging journalism is often provisional ("this seems to be so... what do the rest of ya'll think?").This is a huge and powerful thought. Journalists write as if they get one shot to tell the story. They might write follow-ups, but a "mainstream media" article tends to be written to stand alone, to represent a complete picture, and to answer as many general questions as possible.
This was certainly the case with Attack of the Blogs. I note with interest (though not conclusively) that an IP address Mr. Lyons was using has not revisited my website once since the article was published. The blogosphere reaction to the story comes in more like Letters to the Editor -- Forbes has likely received more than a few on this story -- but that does not mean that the original writer is reading the responses. Much of the mainstream media still does not believe in the self-correcting nature of blogging -- I doubt we'll see a follow-up story in Forbes a year from now.
Bloggers realize they have an accountability to their readers that is different than mainstream media. I'm not talking about some of the blogs that have become online magazines, but rather name-brand bloggers. Searls captured this thought in his e-mail, too, as he describes the "sovereign nature" of a blog:
My blog is my domain. It is the unfiltered (except by myself) source of what I alone think and say. Before blogging, we didn't have that.If an individual blogger writes a one-sided story, he/she can expect to be criticized for it -- either on their own site or on other blogs. They can expect their credibility to take a hit. They can expect their readership to change (in most cases, to drop).
In this particular instance, one of the fascinating things is how the mainstream media and the blogging world have actually combined synergistically. While Forbes readers may not see the rest of the story printed in the magazine, they can on the web -- even on Forbes.com. Without a trace of irony, Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard started blogging the week after this article ran. I'm quite proud of the fact that he was immediately challenged by one of the Lotus community (you know, those who were described as "sickos" in the story) for the obvious conflict.
Searching on the title of the article and the article's author reveals a huge buildup of sovereign voices dissecting and deconstructing the article. I have seen a bunch of those searches land here on edbrill.com. Not only is the article not being taken at face value, the characterization of the players within it, including myself, isn't either. And thus, powerfully, the one-sided nature of a traditional journalist's article has been revealed and deflated-- by the very technology being attacked.
Post a Comment
- 2
Duffbert http://www.twduff.com | 11/8/2005 3:52:41 PM
"Seats 9DEF"...
Are you putting on a few pounds there, Ed???
- 3
Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 11/8/2005 3:55:39 PM
nah, just a -very- empty plane.
- 4
Brian Benz http://www.softwaresoapbox.com | 11/8/2005 4:10:09 PM
I agree on the readership issue: If you write a bunch of one-sided or generally wrong-headed articles, you may be criticized, or worse, (the ultimate insult!) just ignored. People stop linking to you. Smaller audience, smaller voice. You lose readers' interest and their trust. That's something that doesn't happen in the press-yet.
As for Forbes, Mike Malone, former editor of Forbes ASAP, had a great perspective on the whole mess:
{ Link }
- 5
Jon Johnston http://bingo.cbsol.com | 11/8/2005 4:29:26 PM
@1 - Holy COW! If the creative engineering minds in the US could only figure out how to convert hyperbole into some form of energy, dependency on oil would no longer exist! Daniel Lyons as brave, Joe Namath as a blogger and the AFL as blogosphere? Talk about self-indulgence!
- 6
Wild Bill http://www.billbuchan.com | 11/8/2005 6:00:50 PM
The thing that we should note is that my questions to Forbes magazine, both on the Forbes blog, and via my blog (and others) - have been completely ignored.
There is not one piece of correspondence from Forbes.com asking, telling me, explaining its behavior or apologising for its contradictory stance.
If blogs mean that print journalism has to raise its professional bar to be credible in the new "everyone's a journalist" world - so much the better.
I completely agree with the original point of the posting - its the ability to post an article (good or bad), and have a discussion about it, with ANYONE in the world - that makes a blogs value. Something, I note, that Dan Lyons has not attempted yet.
Its a shame that an esteemed publication such as Forbes should time and time again shoot itself in the foot in the technology sector.
I cant think of a faster way of discrediting the Forbes Brand than let unprofessional conduct such as the "Blogsmear" article continue to drag them down.
Its such a shame that the Forbes management dont seem to "get this" yet. Still, either they will, or the brand will disappear. Thats evolution, I guess.
---* Bill
{ Link }
- 7
Gregg Eldred http://www.ns-tech.com/blog/geldred.nsf | 11/8/2005 10:16:04 PM
This is one of the best, if not *the* best, balanced response I have read concerning Forbes and the blogosphere. Bill was measured and articulate in his comments to Forbes, you took some time to look at this from a different perspective (Searls'), and wrote a great post incorporating all of these and adding some very good comments. I wouldn't expect this type of a post from someone alluded to as a "sicko." :-) This is the type of post that probably drives those people nuts.
- 8
Wild Bill http://www.billbuchan.com | 11/9/2005 1:32:04 AM
Another post on Journalism and Blogging from the Scotsman newspaper:
{ Link }
(My favourite line from this was: "No offence, pal, but pass the sick bag. You're a journalist, not the Pope.")
---* Bill
We are not Sickos we are Hate-Spewers, well according to Richard Karlgaard's later blog entry { Link }
quote : "Blogs are democracy. Blogs are free-market capitalism. Blogs are righteous. (And yes, I think Dan Lyons’ brave story on those hate-spewers fouling the blogosphere was damn righteous, too.)"