Andrew McCarthy at Echindne has thrown in the towel.
In the comments (ironically), Andrew fleshes out his reasoning:
"My biggest objection to blogging (as usually practiced) is that the "format" doesn't really allow room for deep thinking. It puts a premium on fast response time and provocative "sound bytes".
As far as I can tell, most of the people who follow blogs are what I'd call "blog junkies": people who want to get their quick fix of an opinion or some story that gets their blood pressure up. They then want to respond immediately with a preconceived thought ("sound byte") of their own, so that they can get their own (emotional) reaction out in public and in front of their fellow blog junkies as quickly as possible. (Why does the phrase "ditto-heads" keep coming to mind?)
This bias not only affects the responses to blogs; the bias in the responses is bound to affect what bloggers themselves post.
It takes time to read and digest a post that contains ideas and points of view that you haven't thought of before. If you want to make sure you know what the author really wrote, as opposed to what you assumed (s)he must have written, you have to read and reread it, and maybe do some web searches or even (shudder!) get off the computer and go to the library.
If you want to respond intelligently, you have to spend some more time thinking about the post, and then even more time writing and rewriting before you post. (And what if you have, like, a life, and don't have that much spare time to waste^H^H^H^H^Hspend on blogs?)
Unfortunately, by the time you've done all this, the comment thread has long since died and gotten abandoned, buried, fossilized, and put into the American Museum of Natural History. (One of the nice things about Echidne's blog is that it has a somewhat slower pace than most -- some comment threads are still active a whopping 12 or 24 hours after the original post!)
And even if by some miracle some blog reader in the far distant future (like, day after tomorrow) actually sees your well thought-out comment, they probably won't bother to actually read it; they'll just look for a few triggering phrases and reflexively respond with a few sound bytes of their own.
To my mind, this is where store-and-forward systems like Usenet, or even (double shudder) print journals have an advantage. There's a built in time-lag between publication of an article and publication of the responses, which eliminates the time advantage that intemperate responses have over thought-out ones. Print journals are also 99% "moderated," as are the best Usenet groups, so that your response has to meet some minimum standard if you want the reward of a big audience for it.
P.S.: Anybody notice how many blogs have no way to review what you're planning to post before you post it?"
Um, yeah, and why I'm grateful for how this place is set up....
- okanogen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
First thing
This was the first thing I got before I got to the bottom of this post. Many of his points are correct...for larger, less restricted blogs. This one doesn't lend itself (easily) to much hit-and-run posting or one-ups-manship.
BTW, what kind of posts did this guy write? I'm unfamiliar with him, and I'm wondering if he was chased out, by something, or if he's one of the many (over)dramatic bloggers one comes across.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
What kind of blogger is irrelevant to me
I just know the points in his comment were really well described. He put into words the dynamic that I find so exhausting/boring at many/most blogs, and why I really only mainly comment here (where that dynamic is significantly reduced).
Yeah, maybe he is overly dramatic, or holds views I don't like, but then that only makes it MORE important to listen to a well-described plea for thoughtfulness and honesty in posting/commenting.
It's easy to do that when in agreement due to the groupthink dynamic.
An interesting point is this: would he be worried about how his postings were taken if he didn't allow or read the comments on his posts? Maybe there are some very good reasons to follow the Daily Howler/Arthur Silber model of not allowing comments? After all, those are two of the most distinct and thoughtful voices in the blogosphere. Would their blogs be as thought-provoking? As overall well-formed?
Would an internal editor engage for them if they solicited comments? If they knew questions/questioners were coming and had to defend themselves, their ideas, and their every word choice in that swamp? Would it improve or destroy their writings?
Many people find the lack of commenting an egregious sin. Why? Is there anything actually meaningful found in the comments at a site like TPM? Huffpo? Echaton? Etc.? Certainly we would hardly worry about blog astro-turfing! But likewise, how would removing commenting stifle debate? What are the ways to foster an environment where good comments help create good posts? Where they reduce myopia and groupthink (let's leave aside "tribalism" for now)?
In my view, these are all interesting meta questions which need to be continually revisited.
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.
Andrew is an excellent writer -
one of the most thought-provoking people out there, though I often don't like his views. I will miss him, if he really means to stay away permanently. He's taken long vacations before, and I hope that's all this is.
Policy not party!
Simple answers to simple questions
Yes!
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Blogging
long articles is hard. In general, the longer a post, the less it is read. There are a few bloggers who can consistently get people to read long articles, but there aren't many.