It is necessary that you first read this Blog Watch article from The Bee's Forum section.Fridays are exhausting, and coming off two days in bed with a nasty bug I was numb this Friday as I slogged through my daily tasks. So I will admit that a deep dread greeted the news that the Blog Watch article I had put together "didn't work."
As I have explained before (see here), I see myself as the victim of a one-armed bandit that eats my free time and then tosses back a few coins when it senses I might get up and leave (see The Fever). The occasional success of putting together a fun article provides just enough reward to keep me monitoring the regional blogs.
The problem this week? A matter of expectations vs. the reality of the regional blogs.
Last week, the Blog Watch article featured a tale of winter fishing, an explanation of life, death and reincarnation and a discussion of the south Sacramento crime wave. The week before featured the experience of watching the bike race, a psycho chicken and other strictly personal themes.
These locally focused blog posts have become the favorite for the Sunday article. This is a major change from the original idea for the Blog Watch column and has evolved over a period of weeks. (See this discussion.)
It was against this expectation that this week's discussion of Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot and a national columnist's discussion of homosexuality grated.
After 19 years of defending my selection of letters to the editor I'm not a rookie when it comes to explaining the decision process that produces a particular package.
Ann Coulter, I explained, has been a very real subject of discussion in the regional blogs, so much so that I created a "What's Hot" category of Ann Coulter. In addition, I felt the first blog did a very good job of making its point. The next post, which technically isn't regional, offers a quick and direct defense of Coulter. Both posts were well within lengths that could be made to work in the very limited space available for the column.
The blog post about New York Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch's analysis of Tim Hardaway's egregious “I hate gay people” comments qualified as local in my book because the column had been reprinted in The Bee.
Together, the three also worked well as a package.
And the bottom line: I don't write the blog posts considered for publication. In my reading, which admittedly was circumscribed by two days in a sick bed, I didn't see any of the preferred posts, at least not with enough shelf life to last until Sunday and short enough to be useful.
Since this discussion took place after the article was already edited and ready for publication, the exigencies of producing the Sunday section weighed on my side and the article went ahead as proposed.
But I'm not home free. It has been suggested that an "introduction" or "explanation" should now be added at the top of each weekly roundup, presumably so that readers expecting the more personal posts won't be put off by unexpected content.
More problematic was the additional suggestion that each blogger should be introduced with a brief explanation of who they are. This might work for those blogs that have detailed "about" pages, but this just wouldn't work for many of the bloggers who have been featured in the past.
I am loathe to embrace any concept that eats up even more of the already limited space for the Blog Watch article, and I see very limited value in turning the blog roundup into a personal column about blogs.
10 comments:
Like wasted space on a hair dryer - warning do not use in shower may cause electrocution.
Warning bloggers say anything - may cause irritation.
Good grief.
Name withheld for the sake of anonymity.
I usually don't have the time to read blogs, so my comment concerns the portions that were reprinted in The Bee Sunday, March 11. I do not understand why The Bee publishes these items without attribution; that is, these are the only items in the Forum section without a byline. Have we gone from anonymous sources to anonymous contributors?
The Sunday Blog Watch is fully attributed.
At the top of the column, it says "A selection of the region's blogosphere, compiled by John Hughes."
And each item is attributed to the blog that it is taken from -- threeknowdownrule.blogspot.com, www.californiaconservative.org and zenoferox.blogspot.com.
Granted, the individuals who actually wrote the posts enjoy a certain amount of anonymity, but such is the norm among blogs. If the blogs are to be watched and an article such as The Bee offers on Sunday published, then individual anonymity is to be expected.
However, the issue obviously troubles some people, hence the proposal that the Blog Watch include an introduction or some explanation that sets the stage for the reader, something I personally would like to avoid if it means less space for the actual blog posts.
OK, so you've placed your name (John Hughes) at the top of The Bee's blog watch column, identified where the blogs can be located, and noted that the common practice is for blogs to enjoy some anonymity. All of that is fine, but it fails to answer the broader question as to why a blogger would enjoy a privilege of anonymity (when quoted in the newspaper) not afforded to other commentators.
"All of that is fine, but it fails to answer the broader question as to why a blogger would enjoy a privilege of anonymity (when quoted in the newspaper) not afforded to other commentators."
A fair point, especially if you are comparing the bloggers to the treatment of letter writers, who must provide real names, verifiable mailing addresses and daytime phone numbers just to have their letters considered.
Once upon a time, The Bee allowed letter writers to use pseudonyms. The most famous was a gentleman who went by the handle of Harding Republican.
It might be possible to make the case that since bloggers are allowed their anonymity, letter writers should as well. And I might even endorse such a change (I'm no longer the letters editor or in any way responsible for what gets published in the letters) if -- and it's a big if -- letter writers who chose anonymity agreed to use just one pen name, e.g. Harding Republican. That's essentially what the blogger is doing.
When I was the letters editor, I received many more letters than I could use. I was always looking for content-neutral ways of winnowing the pile -- required contact into, residency requirement, frequency limit. Eliminating pen names suited that purpose, and it also tended to tone down the vitriol.
Since the one Blog Watch column of less than 800 words hardly compares with the space The Bee devotes to letters and since the Blog Watch column is far more selective in what gets published, a little anonymity is allowable, especially since that's the norm among blogs.
A large share of the blogoshere is built upon the availability of a media to speak ones mind and not fear retribution. I would never write a signed letter to the editor of a local paper and discuss the gang activity in my neighboorhood -just an example.
The need for anonymity is real, but so is the abuse. A person hiding in the bushes shouting out accusations against public figures should be afforded less credibility than a person who stands in the open of the public park to debate.
There have been some interesting conflicts involving anonymous bloggers hiding their identity in order to mislead.
Here's one example.
My blog's been quoted in the Blog Watch (thank you!), but if it were attributed to my name I would respectfully ask Mr. Hughes to withdraw it. Not because I write anything particularly controversial, but because I don't want a search by my name to connect to my blog. The day that happens is the day I take it down. So I very much appreciate that my words can be attributed to only by blog title, which is how I sent them out into the world.
Anonymous bloggers are safe, as far as the Sunday the Blog Watch article is concerned. (Assuming Forum continues the effort without the help of the ipsosacto.com project. See this post.)
However, if a blogger started making news, let's say by attacking an elected official, then I wouldn't be surprised to find the newsroom looking into the identity of the blogger and perhaps publishing that information as part of a news story about the blogger's efforts.
Although my friends and several of my colleagues know who I am, the reasons for quasi-anonymity are real. Sure, one obvious reason is that I don't want to be hassled for my opinions the way some people are (when their critics post home addresses and phone numbers and encourage their minions to harass the writer), but I put my real name on letters to newspapers and don't blink at that. No, the main reason is that I sometimes write very frankly about what goes on in my classroom with my students, and you absolutely must not violate a student's privacy. It's a lot easier to talk about specific problems when the specific people cannot be identified. My random readers may find the situations interesting, but they're not entitled to the identities of my students, which would be much easier to smoke out if I signed my name to my blog posts. A few colleagues know, but that's usually because we have those students in common or have had to deal together with the consequences of student behavior (good or bad).
Post a Comment