Would the local blogosphere benefit from a blog critic? (Dwight Silverman, Chron.com)
Would Houston’s blogging community benefit from a blogging critic?
I’m not thinking about an attack dog . . . God knows there are enough of those in the blogosphere! I’m thinking of someone who points out great local blogging; who understands the form and has thoughts and ideas about how to make bloggers more effective; and who isn’t afraid to call out blog posts that are misleading, sloppy with facts, or plain dishonest.
This person would have to be someone who’s non-partisan, who’s been blogging awhile, and who has the respect of the blogging community.
This is an old post that I never got around to answering because I’ve been blogging a bunch about topical local political news at the little cityblog, in addition to the little podcast experiment.
My initial reaction to this (as a good former Lence student) was: What a bad question.
And that’s the reaction I’ve had since.
The question is bad because it is loaded with some old-media assumptions.
The local blogosphere already has plenty of blog critics. For example, any blogger who takes up Houston politics and media is a potential critic of posts on blogHOUSTON. And blogHOUSTON is a potential critic of blog posts on those same topics. That’s the independent, distributed nature of the blogosphere at its best. The best blogs are having a conversation with each other, and with readers. “Blog criticism” is active and distributed. The old-media model of “Here’s the finished product and a bunch of J-School rules, now let’s have a ‘critic’ judge it” is SO NOT what the blogosphere is about. For better or worse, readers and other bloggers are the critics — and that’s the fundamental nature of the media form itself!
The local blogosphere can always benefit from new bloggers with something to say — in other words, potential blog critics. The notion that it somehow needs a single “blog critic” who has the imprimatur of a professional journalist from the Houston Chronicle continues to strike me as bizarre. The suggestion from several bloggers that a hub site might do a better job as a portal/guide to the local blogosphere is a good one, though (and one that involves work for someone!).
BLOGVERSATION: TBIFOC, Big Pink Cookie, Mike McGuff, Greg’s Opinion, Off the Kuff.
2 comments On A Late Answer To A Bad Question
Kevin:
Hey! This is … olds!
Heh. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Actually, when I posted my question, I actually expected someone to respond the way you did. I was surprised no one did — it’s an obvious responde, but also one that should be said out loud.
I think one problem is with the word "critic". That’s not really what I had in mind, at least in terms of the "critique" part. You’ll note in my original post I said I thought a goog blog critic would emphasize the positive, and I meant that . . . almost like a guide to great Houston blogging.
The best music/art/film critics don’t savage, but rather than provide context and background for those interested in the various genres they review.
But there’s also a timidity in the Houston blogosphere, in that people tend to not call each other out on suspect posts. For example, I know you disagree with Kuff, and he with you, but how often do you two take on each other’s entries?
Not often enough.
The local "blogversation" is often an echo chamber, with people of similar points of view adding more info, but with general agreement. (That’s true of comments, too. How many of the commenters in at blogHouston actually take you to task?) Local posts that need challenging seldom get challenged. In fact, one of the few posts I’ve seen in which one blogger actively took another to task was this one by John at By the Bayou, when he disagreed with one of Anne’s blogHouston posts: http://www.bythebayou.com/2…
You are right, one of the cool things about the blogosphere is that — in theory — its diversity creates an automatic check/balance on suspect posts. But I am not sure that happens enough, even on the national level. You say "Blog criticism is active and distributed," but I am not sure that’s guaranteed. "Active and distributed" often means "active and Balkanized."
I have really enjoyed the comments and blog posts that have been raised by my "bad" question, even those that disagreed. I don’t think there are any "bad" questions, and certainly this one has had a good effect — it’s gotten the Houston blogosphere talking about itself, which it had not done much of lately.
At any rate, you make good points here, and I’m glad you stated the obvious. Someone needed to!
This is olds too! I’ve been swamped.
But there’s also a timidity in the Houston blogosphere, in that people tend to not call each other out on suspect posts. For example, I know you disagree with Kuff, and he with you, but how often do you two take on each other’s entries?
Not often enough.
Hmm, I think we’re probably viewing the Houston blogosphere from different premises.
Charles Kuffner presents a left-of-center perspective on politics (mostly state and local). It’s usually a welcome perspective on the day’s news. Likewise, you’re often going to get a right-of-center perspective out of me on the day’s news.
That’s opinion. I think it’s good to have those perspectives out there. I certainly don’t feel the need to challenge Charles all the time on matters of opinion, although I do sometimes leave a dissenting comment. And sometimes I just leave a fun comment to lighten the mood. I REALLY DO NOT WANT the Houston blogosphere to start to resemble the usenet flame wars of the early to mid 1990s. I participated in some of those. And then I got done with college and grad school. 🙂
If you’ve missed bloggers disagreeing with blogHOUSTON, then you’re not looking very hard. Unfortunately, much of the disagreement is in the nature of those flamey, angry sorts of posts that resemble USENET back in the day. That may appeal to some people, but it’s my view that such rhetoric really doesn’t appeal to thoughtful grownups. Some of the critics of posts at bH would REALLY benefit from tempering their rhetoric, and presenting a competing perspective.
I hope that doesn’t sound like I’m whining, because I’m not. Folks are free to post what they want, and it’s flattering that the little hobby blog has become "big" enough to attract flamey posts. But to be honest, I’d much rather read Charles Kuffner’s or Tory Gattis’s take on the very same news, because while we often have different perspectives, I know they’re going to present something interesting and they are probably going to have their facts right. I’d like to see more blogs like theirs, honestly!
Now, it is true that sympathetic views DO tend to predominate in most blog comments. But think about why that is. Blogs tend to attract readers because there’s a relatively consistent voice on a range of issues that resonates with those readers. So yeah, some comments are going to be of the "attaboy" nature. But other comments are going to flesh out the blogger’s perspective with related facts. And some comments will challenge both the perspective and the facts. I do think we get our share of dissenters, maybe even more than most blogs. If you want to see the groupthink-comment phenomenon in full swing, drop into Kos or Little Green Football, where almost all commenters are strident in their agreement with the bloggers. I don’t have a good solution to that groupthink-comment problem, other than to enforce our civility rules in the forum and to try to keep the tone light enough that folks who might disagree don’t feel too intimidated to leave a comment.
Comments are closed.