Throwing rotten fruit at the blogosphere

Via Span, I've just been listening to National Radio's panel discussion on blogging [audio], featuring Finlay McDonald, Kane Hopkins, Keith Ng and Colin Peacock. I'd known that they were going to be broadcasting this for some time (it had apparently been pre-recorded before Christmas), and have been waiting for it to show up for the last month or so.

Anyway, it was the usual discussion by journalists and critics on the blogosphere. While Finlay's comment about how

the debate can get shrill and petty and puerile and really uninformative very quickly and people run to their partisan corners and just basically start throwing rotten fruit and vegetables

will probably raise more than a few hackles (there's already some sniping in Span's comments about the supposed hatred journalists have for bloggers), an honest assessment is that it is right on the button. That is what we do, and its one of the things I loathe the most about the blogosphere (while throwing my own rotting produce on occasions). Bloggers are by definition opinionated (in that we wouldn't do it unless we were), and the net dynamic encourages escalating levels of rudeness (to which I am not immune), and so pretty soon it's flying tomatoes everywhere.

The thing is, what we do isn't journalism, though on our better days some of us aspire to or even meet that seemingly lofty standard. The blogging culture of immediacy and spouting off whatever first comes into your head means that we frequently don't check our facts and often says things we later regret (I've done both, and I'm sorry for it). The good side is that this means that things get said which people would never dare say in the much-maligned "mainstream media", whether for reasons of taste, fear of lawsuits, or fear of official or unofficial retribution by the powers that be (anyone who is even partly familiar with Chomsky knows what those sticks are and how they limit media opinion to that deemed acceptable by the government and/or business communities). Real media has something to lose, and so wouldn't dare publish (e.g.) Craig Murray's Uzbekistan telegrams. Bloggers don't have lawyers telling them its dangerous, and can frequently take advantage of the internet's free market in legal jurisdiction to avoid the consequences anyway. Real media has to think about tomorrow, and whether political sources will still talk to them if they make the obvious comparison between two American rulers named "George" or even publish something which doesn't take the President or the Prime Minister at face value. Bloggers don't. The bad side is that that very lack of accountability (because we are too small or too remote to be able to effectively do anything about) also means that all too often, blogs spread defamation, libel and outright bullshit, act as a channel for organised smearing and swift-boating of public figures, and throwing rotten vegetables. Institutionally, we are a cesspool - and in a cesspool, its not necessarily the cream that rises to the top.

And on the third hand, its not as if anybody pays us any attention anyway. The blog readership in New Zealand is still very small, and while the better blogs are read by an increasing number of journalists, politicians, and "opinion shapers", most of the time we're left to throw our rotten vegetables in peace. It's only very rarely that a news story floats its way to the top of the blogosphere and into the real media where it can influence others - but given the sort of content we produce (mostly comment, often unoriginal, and frequently entirely predictable), that's entirely unsurprising. News, by definition, must be news - not "sad bastard at computer keyboard picks nose, has opinion".

As should be apparent from the above, I am at the least rather cynical about what we bloggers do. I'm particularly cynical about the cheerleaders for the blogosphere, who wank endlessly about Dan Rather and how blogs will replace the Evil Mainstream Media. To do that, we'd actually have to deal in facts, do analysis, confirm quotes, and check it all before we posted - not just spout off whatever brain-fart we had while reading the morning paper. We'd have to actually become journalists and do real work, maybe even think before we post. And that would take all the fun out of it.

And finally, lest anyone think that I think the blogosphere is totally worthless, I don't. The ability of anyone to set up their own site (effectively buy their own printing press) broadens the conversation, at least a little (and I'm aware of how white and male the NZ political blogosphere is). And for those with higher aspirations, journalists don't have infinite time, and there's very definitely a niche for people who want to do a little digging and/or apply some specialist knowledge to have a great influence. But we should also be aware of the blogosphere's flaws - because the people we hope to influence certainly are.