Countdown initiated

If you haven't been reading the blog at SpoletoToday.com, you should check it out soon. Spoleto ends Sunday (Piccolo on Saturday). Daniel is finishing out the festival but the Edens half of the dynamic  duo is on vacation, almost as soon as we watch one David Edens Hartsell pick up a high school diploma om Friday. Yea! Bravo!

We've been going 90 miles an hour (no day off since May 24!) and it's been fabulously fun and challenging. I've read that brain research shows that change and unfamiliar tasks require a high percentage of cortex activity, which is metabolically expensive. That makes sense to me as a way of describing the tired feeling you have after traveling and attending good conferences and learning a new way of doing your job. It's not the same as the body exhaustion of a hard workout or a strenuous bike ride. But it is fatigue nonetheless.

SpoletoToday.com has been an interesting experience in online journalism for me. It's different blogging for a newspaper. There are more restrictions on what I write, not externally per se, but because I'm aware that, whether I like it or not, the weight of The Post and Courier is behind me (more or less).  That means I have to be aware not only of totally pissing off bosses but of bringing too much of my personal biases into my coverage.

For example, if I'm covering a party that was organized by someone who blew me off for an interview twice, I can't let that influence my review of the event. On xark, you bet your monkey, I'd be naming names and bitching (Don't they know who I am?!). But it's not really about me in the same way on the official blog. Even now I'm having a difficult time articulating it ... I have to adopt a little bit of an Everyman perspective, instead of viewing things through the strictly personal me. It's not about just my view, it's a more generalized, possibly more generic, look. It's less about whether Janet would have a good time, and more about would anyone.

I'm also very conscious of the power of the press. On a blog, you get comfortable in a community and, because people can read posts and comments from past and present, over time readers can see your prejudices and personality. Transparency is a beautiful thing. But in addition to clarity for the audience, it also takes some of the pressure off.  People can put their own value on your opinion because they have context.

Blogging for the paper means accepting the context of The Post and Courier, which is not as transparent to either sender or receiver. People bring to bear ideas of the newspaper based on years of various reporters, editors, opinions, judgments and actions. Including whether the circulation department keeps sending  the wrong bill and the carrier keeps throwing the paper on the roof. Good, bad and ugly, it all contributes to people's judgment of  a blogger's credibility before the first post is written.

And that credibility means responsibility. Ripping someone on xark is not the same as ripping someone as an official representative of The Post and Courier. The audience that cares that Janet Edens thought Verdi was boring is hardly consequential in terms of anyone's career or ticket sales, for example.  Reading that The Post and Courier critic thought it was bad is something else again. Some day, when I am a famous media diva, it might be different. But for now, the credibility of the city's more-than-200-year-old newspaper has far-reaching repercussions that little ol' me has to factor into the formula for integrity and fairness.

I don't think I'm trying to say anything other than "wow, this is different." I am very curious as to the xarker thoughts/opinions/ideas about this issue. We've tackled discussions about journalistic credibility here before and at PressThink and Conover On Media. This is just another view of that issue, one that I hadn't really experienced before.

Comments

[jmsloop]

Janet, That's a very interesting post. While I can't speak for journalism, I do find it interesting that the freedom that a blog allows me often encourages me to "forget" that I'm also always writing as John Sloop, college professor. When Dan first began XARK, and he noted that our choice of names allowed "limited anonymity," I decided to go ahead and use my name, or a version of it, as a way to make me think carefully about my words. While technically I have a great range in what I can say, it could have an impact on how I'm seen/viewed in the classroom, for good or for bad. And while I don't want to go into what I think is "good" or "bad," I do think it's interesting to think about the persona we are creating here, and how that persona then is one of the filters through which we are seen.

Think about it: I knew Jeda way before I met you. Fortunately, you're every bit as smart and snarky and sexycool as Jeda.

[Janet]

Hugs and kisses, Jsloop.

Interestingly enough, while you were commenting, I was changing my appellation to JanetAsJeda. I've updated my ideas of transparency and I'm not so worried anymore about real-world repercussions. I do like Jeda, as my somewhat more free alter-ego.

Don't worry, I'll still take her to parties.

[Ben]

On the opposite tack, I want to change my posting name from my full name to just "Ben." At first I liked the idea that I was fully acountable (whatever that means) for what I wrote. Now, I don't like that my posts can come up on google. It makes fully expressing myself seem risky, career-wise. A little limited anonymity seems good.

So...where do I go to change that? Not that I've posted much in a long time anyway.

[Heather]

Janet, considering what happened at NiT this week, this was a timely and well thought out post. There are times when it is easy to become too comfortable with the "known" audience forgetting there are lurkers and trolls waiting for a slip.

[Daniel]

In a practical sense, all anonymity on the Web is probably "limited." If somebody is really out to get you (and since most trolls seem to be basic sociopaths, once you piss one off, they're out to get you), they're going to "find" something on you.

I've got a "Xarker" Typekey account, but I decided somehow, early on, that I was going to post as Xarker and comment as myself. I think the basic idea was that "limited anonymity" meant that a casual reader / Googler wouldn't know the connection, while anyone with an interest in what we're doing would quickly piece it together. Which is fine. It's more about stumping the lazy enemies.

Which is why I think it makes sense to give yourself a little "search cushion" in some cases.

BTW, I think it's horrible that Brittany has resigned at NiT.

[ben]

I just managed to figure out what "Brittany at NiT" was. I understand her perspective.

I must admit, I have gotten disillusioned with the blogosphere. It's supposed to be this revolutionary, democratic medium, and it sort of is. But mainly it seems to be nasty people being nasty to each other, as well as various amplifying chambers for the most extreme people on both sides. Frankly, I'd rather get my news from the MSM at this point - read the NYT, then maybe watch Fox/O'Reilly for the opposite spin.

It strikes me that blogs do have a role as media watchdogs; I'm just not convinced that they are helping democratic dialogue beyond that. Still, II suppose I am thinking more of comments sections than blogs themselves, so maybe I'm just in a bad mood.

Yet when Xark works, in my opinion, it's mainly because the regulars are a web of people who are connected in real life, mainly (if not exclusively) via Dan and Janet. I tend to respect Xarkers because I know Dan and/or Janet respect them, which means I should give them a fair-minded listen. Does Xark work without that dynamic? I don't know.

It just strikes me that our nation has enough meannness and polarization in it, and my current feeling is that blogs usually make it worse, not better.

[Tim]

I tend to respect Xarkers because I know Dan and/or Janet respect them, which means I should give them a fair-minded listen. Does Xark work without that dynamic? I don't know.

There's your "It's a wonderful life" moment, Dan.

[Daniel]

Which is great, by the way, because I've always felt like George Bailey.

But that's a great question: Does it work without that dynamic? And I guess my answer is, that it works AT ALL is the reason that I remain intrigued by ALL OF IT.

re: News. I don't think today, and I don't believe I've ever thought, that blogs are a replacement for the sort of "primary news" pipelines. For instance, I'm a Wikipedia fan, but when I do interviews about Wikipedia I always try to point out that the whole "Wiki News" concept (launched to much excitement in certain circles in 2005) never really went anywhere. Newsgathering is harder than it looks, and organizing the first draft of raw information in a 24-hour-news cycle would be a challenge even to the most adept social networks.

Where I think it works in interesting and surprising ways is in various communities of blogs. Nashville is Talking, Lowcountry Blogs and Greensboro 101, each in their own ways, catch the daily zeitgeist of a geographic community of bloggers... and to the extent that these people are tapped into their real-world communities, the totality gives you a different view of things.

Another example of a community of blogs that -- as a totality -- is extremely useful is The National Journal Online's Blogometer. This used to be a more general roundup of blog posts (Xark has been featured on it several times), but since about early 2006 it's been focused entirely on just a few hundred political blogs across the mainstream partisan spectrum. Each of those blogs, individually, tends to be a monoculture, an echo/amplifying chamber. But all of those blogs, sampled daily as a group, become (for my money) the best way to keep track of politics in America. You see not only opinions, BUT WHAT PEOPLE ARE HAVING OPINIONS ABOUT. Because the mass media is also a monoculture, also an echo/amplifying chamber. And what they're echoing and amplifying is group-think "news judgment" that says "this is what's important, and the rest is trivia."

As Tim will remember (and typically in far greater detail, with links), there was an awful lot of "blog triumphalism" back in 2003-05, a period when the blogosphere was booming and there was a sense that they were taking on the MSM dinosaurs and winning. And I think, to the extent that people buy that notion, then yes, the blogosphere is a disappointment. And yes, there's an awful lot of psychodrama getting acted out in comments and flame wars, etc.

But what we're talking about is what Dewey would call the "signal-to-noise" ratio. And since blogs are just about the ultimate in unstructured communication, I think you HAVE TO EXPECT a low signal-to-noise ratio from them.

I remain convinced that we'll continue to see interesting uses of social networks to produce primary information (NewAssignment.net), and blogs will have a role in that. We'll continue to see placebloggers challenging MSM at the micro-niche news level. We'll continue to see valuable meta-coverage of bloggers (Blogometer). But the thing I still believe, but cannot prove, is that the breakthrough will be the online informational tools that link readers to new content by subject, interest and timeliness, in real time. Blogs are like the raw, unprocessed pixels of a cultural self-portrait, streaming by so fast that we can't assemble the picture. But I think that someday we'll crack that.

As to Janet's point about responsibility, as it relates to the attention that a media brand brings to any subject, it's worth making a couple of points: First, and most ironically, Xark tends to get a lot more traffic than our "professional" blogs (so what does that say? Part of it is just "search longevity." Beyond that, I'm not sure). So is it traffic that conveys responsibility, or our media expectations?

Second: Once we're able to link reader-to-writer more efficiently, by topic, etc., then it's possible that media branding will have less value than it does today. Will that change the way people think about what they write in these spaces?

Will it make some people behave WORSE?

[Tim]

OK, a thought and some links ...

Dan: "And since blogs are just about the ultimate in unstructured communication, I think you HAVE TO EXPECT a low signal-to-noise ratio from them."

I'm going to quibble with the use of the term "blogs" here. The same statement could be made about "print." Think of all the "print" media out there: porn, tabloids, newsletters, ....

You could replace "blogs" with "email" and so on ....

I agree with Dan's optimism about software agents that "will be the online informational tools that link readers to new content by subject, interest and timeliness, in real time."

I'd like to hear Anna's thoughts on being "outed."

re: Dewey's "signal-to-noise" ratio ... It should be "Dewey on Media"

[Tim]

Am I Dreaming? Is This Real?

[Tim]

Toward a field theory of journalism

I contend that journalism is the most important discoursive practice in our culture. As such, it reflects and drives the noetic field. And this means that it has a profound, even establishing, effect on the dominant rhetoric.

Blair on the media

Third, the fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no-one dares miss out.

[Tim]

Dan:

As Tim will remember (and typically in far greater detail, with links), there was an awful lot of "blog triumphalism" back in 2003-05, a period when the blogosphere was booming and there was a sense that they were taking on the MSM dinosaurs and winning.

I do remember the triumphalism, but I viewed it differently. Blogs were having an impact on ProJo using the same tactics that ProJo had been using on everyone else for decades.

ProJo's didn't like that much. Bloggers weren't journalists (also see Cline and Shafer).

Question is: Was the impact more course rhetoric?

[Tim]

Of course, "course" above should be "coarse."

grrrrrr....

[Tim]

Fixed link for Shafer: http://www.slate.com/id/2115883/