Yet Another Misguided Attack on the Blogosphere

I left town for a few days to hang with family, committed to the fact that I wouldn't blog, but a little piece I read in the Wall Street Journal made my hiatus a brief one. Joseph Rago, an Assistant Editorial Features Editor at the WSJ, penned an article titled "The Blog Mob - Written by Fools to be Read by Imbiciles." Needless to say, I don't think Joe and I are going bowling and throwing back a few any time soon, but that's ok. But what's not ok is the sorely misinformed perspective reflected by Joe in his missive, and the swipe he takes at an entire class of media that, to be sure, poses a serious threat to he and his peers in print media. And while my blog post will largely be clinical in its analysis of Joe's twisted and defensive logic, I am more than irritated at having been classified as a "fool" and my many readers labeled as "imbiciles." Especially since I know this to be untrue on both counts. And I'd be happy to engage Joe in a "brain off" any time he wants. And I am sure most if not all of my readers would rise to this challenge as well.

So, where to begin? I've highlighted some of Mr. Rago's more salient and debatable points below, which should serve as a good starting point. From my imbicilic perspective, it appears to me that Joe's view is rooted in orthodoxy, that he has taken a narrow view of the strengths and weaknesses of blogs, and is just plain wrong in his perceptions about the power of group debate and it's ability to arrive at the right conclusion. But please, take a read for yourself.

********************

The blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think. Journalism requires journalists, who are at least fitfully confronting the digital age. The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage. Instead, they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps.

More success is met in purveying opinion and comment. Some critics reproach the blogs for the coarsening and increasing volatility of political life. Blogs, they say, tend to disinhibit. Maybe so. But politics weren't much rarefied when Andrew Jackson was president, either. The larger problem with blogs, it seems to me, is quality. Most of them are pretty awful. Many, even some with large followings, are downright appalling.

Every conceivable belief is on the scene, but the collective prose, by and large, is homogeneous: A tone of careless informality prevails; posts oscillate between the uselessly brief and the uselessly logorrheic; complexity and complication are eschewed; the humor is cringe-making, with irony present only in its conspicuous absence; arguments are solipsistic; writers traffic more in pronouncement than persuasion . . .

********************

The right now is partially a function of technology, which makes instantaneity possible, and also a function of a culture that valorizes the up-to-the-minute above all else. But there is no inherent virtue to instantaneity. Traditional daily reporting--the news--already rushes ahead at a pretty good clip, breakneck even, and suffers for it. On the Internet all this is accelerated.

The blogs must be timely if they are to influence politics. This element--here's my opinion--is necessarily modified and partly determined by the right now. Instant response, with not even a day of delay, impairs rigor. It is also a coagulant for orthodoxies. We rarely encounter sustained or systematic blog thought--instead, panics and manias; endless rehearsings of arguments put forward elsewhere; and a tendency to substitute ideology for cognition. The participatory Internet, in combination with the hyperlink, which allows sites to interrelate, appears to encourage mobs and mob behavior.

********************

Nobody wants to be an imbecile. Part of it, I think, is that everyone likes shows and entertainments. Mobs are exciting. People also like validation of what they already believe; the Internet, like all free markets, has a way of gratifying the mediocrity of the masses. And part of it, especially in politics, has to do with conservatives. In their frustration with the ancien régime, conservatives quite eagerly traded for an enlarged discourse. In the process they created a counterestablishment, one that has adopted the same reductive habits they used to complain about. The quarrel over one discrete set of standards did a lot to pull down the very idea of standards.

Certainly the MSM, such as it is, collapsed itself. It was once utterly dominant yet made itself vulnerable by playing on its reputed accuracy and disinterest to pursue adversarial agendas. Still, as far from perfect as that system was, it was and is not wholly imperfect. The technology of ink on paper is highly advanced, and has over centuries accumulated a major institutional culture that screens editorially for originality, expertise and seriousness.

Of course, once a technosocial force like the blog is loosed on the world, it does not go away because some find it undesirable. So grieving over the lost establishment is pointless, and kind of sad. But democracy does not work well, so to speak, without checks and balances. And in acceding so easily to the imperatives of the Internet, we've allowed decay to pass for progress.

Wow. Is it just me or does Mr. Rago come across as a, what is it called, a snob? "The internet, like all free markets, has a way of gratifying the mediocrity of the masses." Really? Is this what free markets do, Joe? I thought free markets were the ultimate form of democracy, letting the group arrive at the proper outcome, taking into account all information at its disposal at the individual level? Is this mediocrity, or is this the ultimate in intelligence? What do you call the stock market? Are prices mediocre because everybody gets to, in essence, vote on the outcome? If an issue gains traction in the blogosphere to the extent that it begins to impact the physical world, is this because the idea is mediocre? I think not. Joe, I think you lack the knowledge of the power of groups and the quality of decisions that are made by groups versus those made by individuals. Are groups fallible? Of course. Can mob psychology take hold if certain circumstances are present? Sure. But the same can said of the pathology of individual decision-makers, who are suceptible to at least as many if not more pitfalls than groups. So I don't really buy this argument, either viscerally or empirically. But hey, that's just my (imbicilic - given that I'm a blogger) point of view.

Do blogs vary in quality? Sure. Is there a lot of crap? Yes. Does mainstream media vary in quality? Of course. Are there absolutely terrible writers who do a lousy job of research and their articles reflect their views and not the facts? Tons. So Joe, get off your high horse and look at your peers, and maybe even yourself. And Joe, my friend, why are you so turned off to "instantaneity" (even journalists make up words now and again, I guess)? Some people find speed of reporting to be a virtue, Joe. Sorry if you are not in that camp. And remember how bloggers are often early on the scene, providing early insights, pictures, commentary, and often assistance. Is this a bad thing, Joe? Really not worth much? And what about the stuff of my work, early insights and unique perspectives for investors? That pool of mediocrity of which you refer is, happy to say, is also a font of interesting insights, both on an individual and an aggregate basis. Remember, Joe, bloggers range from Nobel Laureates to novelists, professors to pencil pushers, jocks to, yes, even journalists like you. And sometimes when you look across the sea of seemingly useless data points and connect the dots, you are able to divine things like sentiment about products, brands and companies, which can be really helpful to investors, the companies themselves and advertising agencies alike. So am I missing something, here, Joe? This seems like pretty good stuff. Maybe your painting blogs with such a broad brush wasn't really fair, after all. Just maybe.

Though I could write for hours but will (mercifully) cut it short, I can't help but comment on the statement regarding democracy and its malfunction in light of the lack of checks-and-balances in the blogosphere. Now isn't this the pot calling the kettle black, my friend? How many careers, how many companies, how many reputations has mainstream media destroyed, and what recourse did people have? Wasn't mainstream media often judge and jury? Didn't entire industries evolve around how to help companies and individuals deal with the perceived threat of mainstream media? Did this happen because of the wonderful check-and-balances that were in place, Joe? Sorry. You've got the democracy argument completely backwards. It is the blogosphere that creates the checks-and-balances for mainstream media. Now mainstream media actually has to answer to someone other than to themselves - the general population who happens to be online, aware and possessing a voice. It is funny - I actually wrote about this during a rant at Richard Berke of the New York Times a few months ago. Though it is pretty cheesy to quote oneself, this post and Mr. Rago's piece is so rife with irony that I can't resist. Here are a few of the things I communicated to Mr. Berke on November 2nd:

Richard Berke said: "Some of the blogs take a toll on our reporters. One question on our minds is, 'What are the blogs going to say?"

Roger said: Richie, baby, you've got to be kidding me. There is this thing that has been around for centuries - let's call it mainstream media for kicks. Well, MSM has been known to dig up stories, report the facts, sometimes bend the facts to match a thesis and generally make those who happen to be the targets of MSM writers pretty miserable. As someone who spent nearly two decades on Wall Street working on deals that were often news-worthy, I was often reminded of the old adage "Don't do/say/write anything that you wouldn't be willing to see on the front page of the XXXX (choose your favorite MSM daily publication)." Why? Because of MSM and concern over how what we say and do might be perceived. This was a rational concern, and while it may have been a pain at times to rigidly comply with this directive, it did ultimately build discipline, precision and professionalism. The PR industry grew up around how to handle the potential ramifications of being in the MSM, and how to manage one's image in the media. So, Richard, we have all been worrying about "What are the MSM writers going to say" for centuries; the fact that you and your peers now need to think about your constituencies for a change truly warms my heart. Wake up. The world has changed. Get some thicker skin.

Richard Berke said: "There are people dedicated to analyzing and picking apart whatever we say and do."

Roger said: Awww, people are actually going to be critical about what you write and how you do your job. YEAH, WHAT ABOUT IT? It's called checks-and-balances, Rick, you know, like we have in government and which we really should have in media? Well, now we have it. Kinda means you need to up your game, doesn't it? Maybe dig a little deeper when doing research, interview that extra person to make sure you can confidently corroborate your thesis, anticipate potential holes in your story by thinking about the potential criticisms coming from knowledgeable bloggers? This is a healthy process, RIchard. Sorry if it feels like a burden, but when viewed through the prism of opportunity I think you'll conclude that this can contribute to better journalism and a healthy and necessary balance in a historically unbalanced system.

So you see who was talking about checks-and-balances here, Joe? ME. It seems like you and Richard are the ones that should go bowling together and discuss how the blogosphere is dragging down mainstream media. Maybe between the two of you you'll come up with a cogent argument. Because I haven't seen it yet.

Comments

[Yaser Anwar]

Something for J. Rago and RB to chew on
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/12/digging_deeperwsj_gets_comfort.html

[Yaser Anwar]

As all readers would have noticed over the past couple of months the frequency of articles trying to discredit the blogosphere have increased.

Why is it so? In my view one of the reasons is the MSM is afraid of the ad$$s being going to the blogging networks (show me some proof Yaser! Ok here http://blogs.marketwatch.com/barnako/2006/08/blogs_are_good_.html).

So like I said in my previous comment- the MSM has adapted by allowing users to share the content across social networks and blogs.

Journalists like Mr. Rago are afraid that one day they will wakeup and find that their job is outsourced (not that there is anything wrong with that) & hence I laugh at his because it shows fear- fear of being extinct.

Since we all are in the investment biz we know that quantitative trading has taken over human trading, not entirely but a good portion. Similarly MSM journalists view it as happening to them, and it will, if it hasn't already. Excellent journalists will stay on board whereas twats like Mr. Rago will be kicked out.

We know the blogosphere is on to something when we have CEOs and industry veterans (like many of the people who commented before me on this post) are avid bloggers. Besides if the richest man in the world thinks blogs are good, then WHO THE FUCK is Joseph Rago to say it isn't so? That pesky little journalist (sorry guys I'm a little more pissed off than the rest of you because through my blog I've been able to network/meet people which I could have only dreamed of before- hence the frustration- my bad).

Here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3734981.stm Enjoy!

[Charlie]

The arrogance of business incumbents = opportunity. If they do not get it and write about it from a uninformed or "threatened" perspective it is great exposure. Be thankful.

[Ernie Chan]

Readers trust reviews and ratings on books on Amazon.com more so than NYT book reviews. Movie-goers trust ratings on moviefone.com or google's movie ratings better than any MSM's movie reviews. Similarly, consumer of ideas will trust blogs, especially those with comments and links, more than MSM's articles which are one-directional and rarely subject to the "mob's" reviews and ratings. Of course, MSM have their place in the information society -- afterall, they have a full-time staff to check information and write articles, whereas us bloggers are mostly doing this part-time. However, the MSM writers can't possibly know every arcane topic better than the cacophony of experts out there.

[Yaser Anwar]

Phil-

You know recently Bob Chapman (ever since he's back in business) had advertised that he is seeking someone with excellent vocab and writing skills- maybe you should apply! lol

[Phil]

Wow is right! Where does this boy get off?

I don't remember Papa Hemingway or Sam Clemens savaging other writers or other forms of media... I suppose mediocrity triggers some sort of defense mechanism for Mr. Rago - or is he just the hatchet man spouting "editorial policy" at the Journal?

I doubt the latter as I am on good terms with many fine journalists who don't find it necessary to use "redolent" in his second paragraph, especially when it is being used all too ironically (assuming he even knew what the word actually meant) to criticize elitist thinking.

I'm glad you brought this up because redolent was the last straw for me on this article after Rango found it necessary to mention Ahmadinejad and Guttenberg in his first swipe at attempting to appear more scholarly than you and I. As I am busy, I moved quickly on to more interesting parts of the paper...

I'm almost inclined to rip this guy a new one on my blog but I will instead refer my readers here as you've already made quite a gaping hole!

"Leave Journalism (who the heck capitalizes that? It's not that important!) to journalists?" he says. Well perhaps he should leave Blogalism (and I am officially registering my trademark here) to blogalists I say!

I'm sorry but I can't let this one go - in single sentence P3 he uses the words "logorrheic (spelt and used wrong), eschewed and solipsistic" and I suppose his thesaurus must have been on the blink if eschewed was the best he could come up with. What an effete F*CK!

I would like to make a couple of additional points:

First - the fact that Rago feels "there is no inherent virtue to instantaneity" just shows you how much he (or maybe the whole MSM) DOES NOT GET IT!

You write for a financial publication Joe! Real traders make and lose millions of dollars on a position while you try to find another way to conjugate synonyms for "buy and sell!"

"Traditional daily reporting," he whines, "already rushes ahead at a pretty good clip, breakneck even." Yeah, you'd better slow it down there Joe, you're going to give your non-imbecile readers whiplash if you don't spoon it out slowly!

Blogging lets us get a jump on an oil inventory report at 10:31 or a Fed statement at 2:15 and our readers let us know how we're doing every single day so we're a lot more motivated than you (obviously) to check our facts before we publish some half-assed opinion buried in a column that is not even open for discussion!

Second - This fixation on "imbeciles" again underlining the sheer snobbery of this jackass. An imbecile (and someone who uses "coagulant" rather than, say "lightning rod" like any other "fool" should certainly know) is someone of effectively a 5 year-olds' intelligence, generally incapable of reading. I'd say he's coagulating his own orthodoxy there...

Last point (I promise): The hyperlink is not encouraging mob behavior - quite the opposite. I find most quality bloggers use hyperlinks (and Joe has none) to point their readers to the original sources, something that has been done in print since before Guttenberg by the way, BECAUSE we respect their ability to form their own opinion!

The communal linking of knowledge is what the Internet is all about little Joe, but I guess a tired old used-up filter of dead information like you just doesn't get that!

The fact that "non-journalists" have turned to blogging is because it works. Rather than take 7 years of journalism in college I actually ran companies and, along with millions of other experts in various fields, feel I have something of value to contribute to the global dialog while continuing to pursue a more interesting career than kissing my way up the ladder of a fading media giant.

Just because I don't feel the need to run my articles under the nose of some assistant hack at the Journal for approval before I share it does not necessarily invalidate the content!

[Bill a.k.a. NO DooDahs!]

That is why I call them the "War Street Urinal."

[RichL]

The WSJ article didn't deserve comment. I stopped my subscription after 30+ years as a faithful reader because their editorial page positions as chief apologist for the current incompetents in the White House turned my stomach. The WSJ is busy making itself irrelevant.

[Jason Wood]

Roger,

Passionate missive. I was halfway through a blog retort on this myself but then thought, wouldn't publishing this kind of be like rewarding ignorance?

He's not the only one who's letting the social media revolution pass him by. Gartner contends, that GLOBAL blog publication has peaked.

As you might imagine, I "politely" disagreed...

http://woodrow.typepad.com/the_ponderings_of_woodrow/2006/12/tis_the_season_.html

[Yaser Anwar]

"Oddly my only hope for publications like the WSJ was in the power of their ability to provide insightful editorial control for their content. I guess I was wrong." Kris I just look at it this way- its in the damn Opinion Journal & every now and then we will have some one bitching about the blogs (as we discussed last time in Richard Berke's post of Roger's).

Needless to say that blogs have high importance. If not why would the WSJ, Joe's own god damn employer, list 'What Are The Blogs Saying' under most, if not all, articles? They do that because they realize the power of the blogosphere cannot be ignored.

That's why I've never read the OJ or any other publication which passes opinions- talk is cheap and everybody has an opinion.

Like everyone else I've got a handful of blogs I follow to learn from opinions about a particular topic- such as Roger's & Barry's & Guy Kawasaki's etc, people who know what the fuck they are saying in their circle of competence.

Joe is just making a hasty generalization, I'm just glad its in the OJ.

Roger- you make excellent points about democracy- after all if it wasn't so why would the NYT etc have "share it" on their columns ? If we all were such "Imbiciles" they wouldn't need to do that.

Off topic- Happy Holidays to everyone! Please don't spoil it reading BS opinions ;)

[Roger]

You're right, Bill. My bad.

[Bill a.k.a. NO DooDahs]

Rog, why do you bother to read the "Urinal?"

[Kris Tuttle]

Oddly my only hope for publications like the WSJ was in the power of their ability to provide insightful editorial control for their content. I guess I was wrong. Seems like the only people left to read the WSJ will be managers of perennially underperforming mutual funds.

I admire your energy in raging against the machine. From 1984 to about 1995 I was an avid reader of all mainstream press. However by the mid-1990's I could see that it was all just a huge waste of time so I dropped all my subscriptions, stopped reading them and never missed it a bit!

As Donald Knuth might say, these publications are aimed at those wishing to stay on top of things. My aim is to get to the bottom of things.