Thank you, Dave Fleet, for drawing my attention Christie Blatchford‘s comments on blogging and online conversation.
The general public has had the ability to join the conversation at newspapers (and magazines) for years through letters to the editor even if the online community believes this to be a new phenomenon, exclusive to themselves. To their credit, editors publish letters that present both supporting and contrary points of view — just like a normal conversation would.
The process of having a letter to the editor printed includes an editorial review which selects the letters that present an intelligent argument or thought in a productive way, and may also involve the refinement of the letter in a way that includes both the author of the letter and the editor of the newspaper. There are many logical and obvious reasons for this approach including the fact that there is a finite amount of space on the printed page.
Comment moderation on a forum, blog or podcast site isn’t even a distant cousin of the newspaper approach. There is a lot of pressure in the online community to not moderate comments in favour of letting people share their uncensored, unrefined and kneejerk thoughts. Ms. Blatchford correctly points out that this typically leads to a ‘brief, ungrammatical shouting match‘.
In the race to be heard online, the favoured approach has become being the contributor that ‘yells’ the loudest — intelligible or not. Website owners would never dare to suggest working with the commenter to make their comments more productive. It’s socially unacceptable and has become an unwritten yet well known rule. Even if that approach were acceptable, most site owners don’t have the time to take that upon themselves, much less do it without consulting with the contributor.
I don’t expect that there will ever be a happy medium to this conundrum and that’s why many journalists won’t take to blogging even if their employer allows and encourages it. It may also be the reason behind the increasing number of newcomer-bloggers that don’t allow comments or provide contact information on their sites. Commenters no longer need the cooperation of the site owner since they can post their own points or counter points on their own sites.
The challenge for newspapers is to find a way to evolve their approach to conversation management from the printed page to the online world — becoming more responsive and yet still working within the ever evolving and increasingly bootstrapped revenue models.
It seems laughable to me that people just don’t understand that good human communications in person is just the right model for good communications in any mode of discourse whether it be print, or on-line. Yes, people shout at each other all the time on-line, but it is not the norm in personal interaction (save reality tv which really doesn’t count on any level). People have strongly held beliefs that they feel compelled to share. This is more than ok, it is a way to understand others and their world. While you may never agree, it is important to listen and learn.
Thanks Mark for pointing this out for us. The best practice is to imagine you are speaking with someone right in front of you. Use your inside voice, as we tell our children. Don’t use profanity, explain so you can be understood, your opinion only counts if we can hear what you are saying.
Comment by Larry Lawfer — August 23, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Mark, for better or worse, there’s something else that distinguishes print news from online blogging.
Once the shouting begins, the tenor of the debate is pretty much the same, even if print editors have some moderating influence.
But the difference between traditional media and the blogosphere is that, for the most part, blogs *begin* with opinion, much of it unsubstantiated. A newspaper or a reputable online news site at least tries to deliver cornerstone content that is reasonably balanced, accurate, and fair. (We can comfortably exclude FOX News and most talk radio from that observation.) The majority of blogs have no such reference point.
It may seem like a stretch to think of conferences as the place to find a base of knowledge or evidence to give greater substance to the “op ed” content in blogs. But there’s an interesting connection to be made here: Just as many blogs are crying out for a bit more substance, the world of meetings and events is looking to the interactive Web as a place to extend the discussion far beyond the closing plenary of a live event.
In sharp contrast to mass media, a point in common between blogs and conferences is that they both lend themselves to narrowcasting: you’ll find conference sessions on the most arcane topics, and they’re often the most interesting and transformative, even if there are only a couple of dozen people in the room.
On balance, I think there’s more good than harm in the unwritten rule (that you’ve now written down, now that I think of it…) that site owners don’t tamper with bloggers’ opinions. But there’s value to expert knowledge, too, and the online world loses out when we fail to include it, or forget how distinguish between well-researched fact and well-articulated opinion. Conference content may well be one of the ways to fill that gap.
Comment by Mitchell Beer, The Conference Publishers — August 23, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Yes, Journalism is a profession; blogging is a passion. Journalist have editors, fact checkers, and deadlines; bloggers have their opinions and un-researched facts. But maybe the real point here is that each have an audience. Each have their passionate defenders. Where this is all going is jumbled, but there will be a vetting out of good content over bad, paid or unpaid. People will listen to those who share the most information(accurate, or opinion), and those they are most comfortable with.
Look at the statistics of late, (I am tempted here to say 76.7% of statistics are made up. In fact, I just made that statistic up), but people are finding their information from the people they trust. Whether that be the local paper, the regional news, the national magazine, or their international social media friend. Frankly, this is not too complicated it is all story telling. Tell your story to the best of your ability and as honestly and authentically as you can and people will listen. Failure to be honest and you will be found out, the result is you will never be trusted by those people again. Treat people well, do your job of gathering information before you spew your opinion and you just may find an audience. Good luck.
Comment by Larry Lawfer — August 23, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
Another interesting aspect of social media is the direction in which the conversation will travel. For instance, I anticipated a debate on the quality of the conversation through articulate comments, point or counter-point, not a discussion on the merits of journalistic reporting over blogging.
Well… since the conversation is going that way…
I’ve always felt that blogging is a form of op-ed in the same way that print publications will frequently include op-ed pieces in them. I suspect they do so since that form of journalism is the one most likely to elicit a response and engage the readership. In fact, many people argue that certain print publications expose their political leanings in the type of regular reporting in which they engage.
In my view, the difference between print publication op-ed and social media op-ed is the quality of the writing. Most bloggers will publish stream of conscious works. It’s easy to paint all bloggers with the same brush and say that the quality of the writing is substandard. However, I’ve read the work of many bloggers and the quality of the people I follow rivals if not exceeds some journalists, many of whom are bound by their editors to write to appeal to a grade 6 level of interest and comprehension. So, in fairness to the journalists, they are required to oversimplify their writing.
What I’m writing here is beginning to sound like a them vs. us discussion. I didn’t expect to go that route and this is one of the dangers of blogging. I probably won’t take the time to review what I’m writing here for grammar and spelling mistakes and effective writing. A journalist will write, refine, tweak and then have their piece reviewed and commented on by an editor. Notice that this is part of the process for which they are paid. Bloggers are people that have been given a digital notebook to record their thoughts and are taking advantage of the opportunity and the motivation of an audience to document their thoughts and opinions.
The question becomes, how can both print publications and bloggers modify their respective approaches to better manage the digital conversation?
Comment by Mark — August 23, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
Mark:
You’ve commented on my blog before, and you’ve probably noticed that there are no anti-spam measures installed. That’s because I review each and every comment before it goes ‘live’ and that gets rid of spam right there.
It also allows me to control what comments go up. I have NO problems posting comments that people may leave that may criticize me or my viewpoints, in fact, I welcome them. What I won’t do is allow a comment that is off-base, racist, demeaning to anyone, or something that doesn’t further the conversation in some form. When such a comment is submitted I will contact the submitter and welcome them to submit another comment, one that is helpful to the conversation. I won’t stand for name-calling, shouting, etc.
Totalitarian? Kind of. Intent on keeping conversation on track? Yep.
Comment by Stevie Z — August 24, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
[...] an interesting discussion brewing over at Sound Connections, the online home of The Conference Publishers’ intrepid podcast consultant Mark [...]
Pingback by Opinion, Reporting, or All of the Above? | The Edge — August 28, 2008 @ 7:19 am
Mark, for better or worse, there's something else that distinguishes print news from online blogging.
Once the shouting begins, the tenor of the debate is pretty much the same, even if print editors have some moderating influence.
But the difference between traditional media and the blogosphere is that, for the most part, blogs *begin* with opinion, much of it unsubstantiated. A newspaper or a reputable online news site at least tries to deliver cornerstone content that is reasonably balanced, accurate, and fair. (We can comfortably exclude FOX News and most talk radio from that observation.) The majority of blogs have no such reference point.
It may seem like a stretch to think of conferences as the place to find a base of knowledge or evidence to give greater substance to the “op ed” content in blogs. But there's an interesting connection to be made here: Just as many blogs are crying out for a bit more substance, the world of meetings and events is looking to the interactive Web as a place to extend the discussion far beyond the closing plenary of a live event.
In sharp contrast to mass media, a point in common between blogs and conferences is that they both lend themselves to narrowcasting: you'll find conference sessions on the most arcane topics, and they're often the most interesting and transformative, even if there are only a couple of dozen people in the room.
On balance, I think there's more good than harm in the unwritten rule (that you've now written down, now that I think of it…) that site owners don't tamper with bloggers' opinions. But there's value to expert knowledge, too, and the online world loses out when we fail to include it, or forget how distinguish between well-researched fact and well-articulated opinion. Conference content may well be one of the ways to fill that gap.
Comment by Mitchell Beer, The Conference — December 31, 2009 @ 3:05 am