A friend sent me this New York Times article, which summarizes a heated confrontation that took place on the HBO sports media show Costas Now. I'm not usually interested in professional sports-related topics, but this discussion got my attention.
On the show, Buzz Bissinger, the author of Friday Night Lights and other books let rip on Will Leitch, the founder of the sports blog Deadspin. Shortly after the show started Bissinger interjected himself into the conversation.
"I really think you're full of shit," he said to Leitch. Bissinger then launched into a full critique of blogging.
"I think blogs are dedicated to cruelty, they’re dedicated to journalistic dishonesty, they’re dedicated to speed," Bissinger said. "Here's insight in blogging, because it really pisses the shit out of me," he said before reading some offensive comments he pulled from the blog.
Later in the show Leitch acknowledged that some blogs are abusive and not responsible, adding that those are not the ones that become very popular. "The nice thing about the Web is it's a meritocracy. Sure anyone can start a blog, but to get a readership you have to be serious, you have to be consistent, it's hard goddam work..."
The Real Disagreement
This debate isn't new, but here's what this particular discussion made me think about.
You get the people in Bissinger's camp who don't like what bloggers are doing. Like Bissinger, they say blogs are dumbing things down. Blogs are vicious, uncensored and bloggers don't have the same accountability as journalists, which negatively affects the quality of the content, they say.
Then you get the people who think like Leitch. Perhaps bloggers aren't accountable to editors and news organizations in the traditional sense, but they're accountable to their readers, they say. In response to criticisms about the tone in the blogosphere, they say that the large variety of blogs cater to many different tastes, some are snarky, others aren't, it's a question of taste.
Leitch points out that the Internet is a meritocracy. I don't think you can argue with that -- you don't have to read, listen or view anything online that you don't want to. Popular blogs are widely read because people like what they're reading. They keep coming back and sending the stuff they read to friends because they're gaining something from the content.
The real disagreement between these two camps is over how much faith they have in readers.
Bissinger and others who espouse pro-establishment views obviously don't trust the average person's intelligence. If you buy what they're saying, then almost anything that's online -- no matter how dumb, profane or poorly written -- could become popular and mainstream. I mean that's the fear, right? They're concerned that everything that's bad about blogging could become the modus operandi.
On the other hand, Leitch, who is a young Gen. Xer, and the rest of the pro-bloggers have absolute faith in the intelligence of readers. They're counting on the fact that people aren't going to keep coming back to Web sites that continually get the facts wrong or defame people to the point of disgust. They acknowledge that there will always be garbage online, but their faith in people makes them believe that the Huffington Post will always hold more authority then Perez Hilton.
As a blogger, I predictably tend to side with Leitch. Bissinger's arguments really didn't speak to me. During the show, they both touched on the idea that this could be a generational issue. So maybe that's it.
Bissinger is a baby boomer and his argument about blogging dumbing us down, sounds a lot like Susan Jacoby, another boomer, who makes the same point. It could be generational, but the person who sent this to me is a millennial who strongly agrees with Bissinger and many people have pointed out that most Gen. Ys don't read blogs.
But I do have to give Bissinger credit for one thing. Towards the end of the show, the host asked him whether his distaste for blogs arises from feeling like bloggers are threatening his job. There aren't many journalists who deal with this honestly, but Bissinger acknowledged that bloggers make him nervous. "This guy [Leitch], whether we like it or not, is the future," he said.
Check out the clip from the show here. Also take a look at the discussion about this post at Brazen Careerist.
Image from Flickr.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Your Attitude Towards Blogs is a Reflection of What You Think of People
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It's interesting how different generations and different people have different opinions on blogs and the internet. The internet is very democratic obviously, anyone can write about anything. You don't have to be credentialed, you don't even have to be an expert, you can still write about it. I think that's part of what makes some people suspicious of blogs and the web in general.
Personally I like being able to read different perspectives. I don't necessarily have to agree with them, but I do like finding out about what different people think. I can pick and choose what I want to believe, and I'm comfortable doing that.
You know - I think I'm going to start a crackdown on the neighborhood kid's lemonade stand too...this guy has a good point.
I don't understand why people freak out about blogs and think they are going to undermine journalistic integrity. (We could debate that journalism is doing a fine job of undermining itself - but that's for another blog.)
Jaclyn - I agree, people are intelligent enough to make those decisions on their own. And if they aren't intelligent enough, they should have the freedom to make mistakes such as thinking Perez Hilton is legitimate news. This is the hallmark of free speech in our country - let's not forget that.
I did a not dissimilar post on this very issue, but you take an ever so slightly different tack.
I think it comes down to a new business model forcing a change on the establishmentarian media.
What I find particularly interesting is that it would seem that Bissinger chose to attack in a way that guaranteed he would get internet play - a kind of cynical sort of ploy. Perhaps it was his intention to force some internal dialog among bloggers?
Well done.
Michael, Milena & Mo (nice alliteration!!) thanks for stopping in!
Mo, I think Bissinger probably did want some discussion on this issue, I'm not sure he intended it directly for the blogosphere though. And if he did, it's not such a smart strategy because it would be very naive of him to assume that his rage would make bloggers reconsider what they're doing and some how come over to see things from his perspective.
Either way, I think the discussion is great. I know that it's made me think about what makes a good blog, how we should preserve journalism etc. Many thoughts, for other posts...
Jaclyn: I think you said what I was trying to say, but did so more succinctly.
He deliberately attacked the face of the blogosphere, knowing it would generate "Buzz" (now there's an irony, eh?), and you say that its affected you in such a way as you've begun reflecting on issues. He HAS to know blogs aren't going to go away - so he's attacked them in such a way as to force that self analysis you're talking about.
Would you have engaged in that reflection without that nudge or if he were more polite about it? He deliberately used the language of blogs in attacking them. Perhaps he's not quite the "old media" dolt, desperate for his own slice of the world to remain the same as I originally suggested. Perhaps he actually is interested in maintenance of standards? Or maybe he's just an old codger jerk too.
Nice conversation here!!
very well stated michael u can pick n chose
credit repair
Post a Comment