I have known only a handful of people in my life I consider brilliant, and Chad Hermann, my friend and Carbolic Smoke Ball colleague, is one of them. As many of you know, a month ago he shut down his own blog, TWM, likely forever. It is a terrible, terrible loss for the local blogosphere. Thankfully, Chad has written a final TWM, and it comprises the entire Page G-6 of the Sunday Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ("The Next Page" feature). It is brilliantly written "must reading." He explains with his typical candor why he signed off his blog, and in the process decimates the "shrill, toxic, intolerant crusading that these days so often passes for blogging . . . ." Chad holds a mirror up to the local blogosphere, and the reflection isn't pretty. Every local blogger should read it.
I note in passing that the page resembles the old TWM -- with one notable omission: it does not include the iconic Carbolic Smoke Ball logo on the side. I suppose that's because it's the same design we use on our weekly page in the competing Trib p.m.
Mr. Hermann is not alone in signing off his blog. Two other prominent and respected Pittsburgh blogs have also announced they are either finished or would be signing off shortly: the great Pitt law Professor Mike Madison's Pittsblog (a blog that was instrumental in my starting Carbolic Smoke Ball) and Jonathan Potts' The Conversation.
I am fairly certain that too few people fully appreciated how fortunate Pittsburgh was to have three writers of this caliber gracing the local blogosphere -- you know, people who actually know something.
The blogosphere provides an opportunity unprecedented in human history for civil discourse and enlightenment. Now the entire English speaking world is our community. But by most important measures, it has not lived up to its promise, and in many respects it has devolved into the sort of inane cacophony one hears at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park. Too often, simplistic, knee-jerk reactions that filter out all complexity and nuance masquerade as rational analysis. The many purveyors and undiscerning readers of this tripe don't know enough to recognize a great blog from dreck, so sometimes the great blogs get lost in the shuffle, unread by all but a few.
Listen sometime to a typical group of guys sitting near you at a sporting event -- the thing that always amazes me is the confidence with which they express even wholly uninformed opinions. That's what's become of much of the blogosphere. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The First Amendment guarantees that. But what sane person thinks that uniformed opinion is worth listening to? Inappropriate cocksuredness isn't worth anyone's time.
The result? Talented, informed writers realize that they are playing to a crowd that doesn't "get" it, and that refuses to engage them in rational, civil discourse. Eventually they drop out and spend their time on things more worthwhile. There are exceptions; there are some very worthwhile blogs. But not nearly enough.
The only way to attract more writers of the caliber worth reading is to raise the level of discourse in the blogosphere and make it worthy of them.
Sadly, right now, it is not.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
i feel badly that they have decided to give up their blogs.
i think one of the things that makes blogging great is that there are blogs of every caliber.
i agree that some have devolved into childishness and outright lies and i've long argued against this sort of 1 upmanship win at all costs mentality that permeates much of not only blogs but every facet of daily life.
still, it really does showcase all of the different views and ideas, some as wrongheaded as can be, and provides a clear picture of the country far better than any other medium.
my blog?
well, it is what it is and it to hase evolved as i have and changed as i became more comfortable with the whole concept of a blog and myself and opinions and personality.
what started out as a lit blog, me being a poet and a list administration for a very large international poetry group has morphed into an eclectic mix.
silly sometimes? yes, but we need silliness now and again or we will go mad(and i'm "delightfully mad" now according to a few people)
so, i'm sorry to see these blogs go.
perhaps they will come back in different forms.
i hope so.
i know i have "met" some truly wonderful, sometimes aggravating but always bright and interesting people via my blog.
many thans to them.
I predicted this exact thing would happen.
If it really is a temporary recreation of TWM, I imagine I'll be impressed by the writing, infuriated by the hostility, and there'll be roughly an 80% chance I'll object strongly enough to the substance that I'll be driven to attempt some kind of rebuttal. Which will be fun as always.
I'm positive tomorrow's op-ed be a valuable and timely opportunity to opportunity to open a discussion on the state of things in the blogosphere, but at the same time I fear it itself will be less about actually elevating discourse therein, and more about elevating the author's posturing of himself over the pitiable masses he so keenly resembled.
Judge, I don't get how the presence of a lot of bad blogs discourages would-be great bloggers. There are a ton of crappy novels in the bookstore. Does that sour people on writing fiction? There is more crud than quality to be found in every medium and every endeavor.
__________
CORRECTION: My original comment here stated that TWM took all its old content down -- and that it must have done so to avoid criticism for the same things he decries in today's piece.
That looks to have been bunk. TWM's archives are up and freely accessible. Sorry for getting that wrong; thanks to Chad for pointing that out to me discreetly instead of putting me on blast, as he would have had every right to do.
Sherry, I'd love to see a lot more of the very prominent folks in town start a blog but they can't be bothered. They are making their mark elsewhere and blogging, to them, is not a very respectable endeavor.
Unfortunately, some of the most talented bloggers have likely found that they are not making the kind of impact that they can make elsewhere. That's because blogging has become like Hyde Park, with too many nutcases standing on soapboxes making noise. It's tough to hear a sane voice through all the static, much less an informed one.
You know, I’ve sat back in silence these past several months, watching with amusement as TWM provoked a firestorm of vituperative reaction over the Obama candidacy. Countless other bloggers have expressed far greater criticisms of Sen. Obama than TWM did, but none of them were greeted with the scorn, the abuse, yes -- the actionable libel -- heaped upon TWM. Why was that, I asked myself? It is patently obvious, I said to myself: TWM was extremely effective at advocating that the media’s love affair with Barack Obama is unwarranted. (It was also the most effective at bashing George W. Bush, but TWM’s critics forget that.) TWM’s analysis was extremely well written and extremely well reasoned. I did not always agree with it, but it was premised on honest-to-goodness information and reasonable conclusions drawn from it. It was always honest.
Bram mentioned that he expected Chad’s PG piece to be marked by “hostility.” Neither the piece nor TWM were marked by hostility, in my opinion. But, I will tell you, Chad would make a hell of a lawyer. I was recently accused by a judge in one of the northern Pennsylvania counties of writing a brief that was “vituperative” – but he grudgingly reversed his own prior decision and, without any enthusiasm whatsoever, ruled against a prominent local law firm and in my favor. You see, my brief was “vituperative” because it was effective, and frankly, he didn’t especially want me to win. Another time a very prominent local lawyer started off his argument to a federal judge by criticizing my brief: “Your honor, my opponent’s brief is rife with sarcasm and pettiness . . . .” Outside in the hall he said to me, “That was a hell of a brief.” And of course I won that one, too – worth about a million dollars. There are even better examples but they’d take a long time to explain. So call it “hostile” if you want. I call it effective advocacy, the best written blog in Pittsburgh.
I frankly suspect that the persons viscerally offended by TWM’s analysis have never voted for a Republican in a presidential election. Now, you must understand, I know some staunch Republicans who have never voted for a Democrat, and they, too, are a source of bemusement – and bewilderment -- to me. In all fairness, it is quite possible that Mr. Hermann himself has never voted for a Republican in a Presidential election (I don't know, we don't discuss things like that) but – and this is the point that TWM naysayers don’t understand and will never, in a thousand years, accept (and note: I really don’t care): he calls ‘em like he sees ‘em. He’s more liberal than almost anybody I know, which is saying a lot, and which is a tad too liberal for my tastes. That’s OK, he’s still my friend because he doesn’t espouse uninformed opinions, and he has no use for politically correct orthodoxy that dictates that he adopt a position based on something other than rationality.
As for why some prominent bloggers are dropping out: in this limited Western Pennsylvania market where a hell of a lot of people don’t even know what a blog is, much less follow any, the time and efforts of people like Chad and Mike Madison can have a far greater impact elsewhere. I don’t know what their audiences were, but for example, this little blog only draws an average of 150 unique visitors a day. That’s been pretty steady for a while, and I don't anticipate much growth any time soon. I do this, sporadically, for fun. My “real” Web site has a big audience – and if you include our radio and newspaper gigs, we’re reaching several hundred thousand people every week. My point is, if a talented blogger can’t be heard over the static of all the other blogs, he or she is going to tire of it eventually, because they can put their talents to better use elsewhere. Blogging is like Hyde Park with too many nutcases standing on soapboxes creating static. How does it differ from other media? Blogging if FREE. Why do you think there are so many?
Anyway, we're not going to turn this into TWM Part II -- in deference to Mr. Hermann, who has retired TWM.
That's my first and only word on the subject.
ah, it is no fun being "respectable" all the time!
but, then again, i have no "persona" to protect, no career, none of that really restricts me. i'm expected to be a little odd. poets by and large are.
that perception of artists and poets grants me the freedom to speak my mine and not really offends most people tho it is a sort of double edged sword in a way because some people will not listen simply because they assume i'm "flaky"
Rule #1 (when speaking with activists): Don't burn out.
Chad wanted discourse, but not the pain of dealing with the comments on his blog.
There is some irony in that.
Likewise, McCain can look into the eyes of Putin and see "KGB" -- but -- he can't look at the other side of the debate stage in the direction of Obama on Friday. Go figure.
More irony that I'd love to hear explained with a reply from Chad: McCain thinks it is wrong to sit down with others (esp enemies) in diplomacy talks. Likewise McCain promotes a halt to debates and campaign efforts. Does he want talk. Or, not? Is Obama and the audience (USA voters) not worthy of his time/attention?
To talk or not to talk, post, debate, blog, comment, write, sing -- whatever. And, to not do it as a withholding makes for interesting discussions that should continue.
Speaking only for myself ... my voting history consists of Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and soon to be Obama. Not sure if that's a large enough sample size to be relevant from your analysis, Judge, but it probably is. Nonetheless, I have friends and acquaintances who are much more economically conservative or socially conservative or both at the same time, and some of them or smart, but it never "viscerally offended" me. May as well stop dancing around it -- there was something about TWM's Rev. Wright jag that I and many others felt viscerally, and it wasn't based on anything that could be explained by cognitive barriers -- the refusal to hear anything that contradicts one's ideology or party affiliation. As to "political correctness", I felt less politically correct than BOTH camps because I pro-actively admired the contributions of said Rev. to our political discourse -- but again. I feel like I am familiar with the practice of listening to views that differ from my own yet respecting the difference as a matter of opinion. Of the Wright material, sad to say, I found almost none of it well thought out, or well reasoned, or even well written. And there was so much of it. Again, I'm familiar with disagreeing with people, but I could not reconcile what I was witnessing at the time with intellectual honesty. Not from someone who calls it as he sees it and knows better than to take things out of context. Not from someone who calls it as they see in in regards to America and war and everything else. That's why I felt it was important to engage with that work, and I still feel I did so appropriately, though others can certainly disagree.
I refuse to read the Post-Gazette anymore so if you don't post Chad Hermann's piece I won't read it.
Wow! The great Mark Rauterkus visits this peculiar little Web site! I was starting to think he didn't like leaving comments or something.
Bram: thanks for reminding me. I've had a Rev. Wright piece sitting around that I'd forgotten to run for Carbolic.
Mr. Bethel Park: I had to stop getting the PG, too. But I understand they utilize a special process now before delivery: the delivery guys pre-soak the papers to make sure they're wet even when it doesn't rain.
I know I'm late coming to this comment thread, originally it was because I had so much to say about TWM that I wanted to frame my thoughts. I decided this morning that writing a book about how frustrated I am with TWM would be counter-productive. Chad would be free to select a misstatement here or an objectionable statement there, essentially to critique me at a level that he does not expose himself to critique. Instead I’ll say this in addition to my post, I agree in substance with Bram’s comments here. Namely, that other people have derided Obama in ways I respect, but Hermann uniquely goes too far and prompts a visceral response. and that crappy bloggers don’t necessarily discourage good bloggers.
Having calmed down a bit since writing my post, I'll offer this farewell here. I will miss many of Hermann’s posts and I congratulate him on a long, successful blogging career but I will not miss nearly spitting out my coffee while I read his posts. Ultimately, I think the Burghosphere as a whole will miss TWM whether I do or not.
While I respectfully, but wholeheartedly, disagree with you and Bram, Burgher Jon, I must say that the interest about Chad in the local blogosphere this week has been eye opening. He certainly knows how to draw a crowd. Still, I have a suspicion that the Burghosphere hasn't seen the last of him. For one thing, tomorrow morning he'll be appearing on DVE's Morning Show to discuss the whole thing.
I can't believe I'm asking this: any idea what time?
Haha, I know how Bram feels, but I'm curious too. I find it a little surprising given that I imagine Jim and Randy (who have been in radio for longer then blogs have on the internet) may not have a lot of bloggers in their regular listening group.
Wow, he really is a lightning rod, isn't he? He should be on around 9:20, Bram.
Well, he penned a long essay in Sunday paper, which to a significant degree discussed not only his blog and blogging in general but the local political blogosphere.
So I think it's reasonable for local political bloggers to express an interest in what is now this mini-media blitz -- for which we are seemingly serving as fodder, though mostly as straw-men. I don't think it's anything to swoon over, which is why I hesitated to ask.
Post a Comment