Richard Posner (who I think should be on the Supreme Court) wrote:
"In effect, the blogosphere is a collective enterprise - not 12 million separate enterprises, but one enterprise with 12 million reporters, feature writers and editorialists, yet with almost no costs."
I'm going to have to disagree with this, at least partly. Blogs, bloggers, are 12 million separate enterprises, very independent from each other and quite often extremely contrary to each other. And I find a great many more editorialists than simple reporters. Speaking for myself, at such (all too rare) times as I blog, I'm mainly a spectrumologist. Eric Scheie (Classical Values) has often been a historian. Others are largely theologians, philosophers, appreciators of arts or literature, etc.. In many ways, the blogosphere resembles a library or a university more than a newspaper. It's the journalistic bloggers who get the most publicity in journalism, of course. And probably my own perspective is skewed because I look for the more cantankerous bloggers.
Very interesting synchronicity about "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". My brother (a programmer) happened to mention that article when we were discussing Spengler's dualism of the Cathedral and the Castle.
The only way the corrective mechanisms of blogging will work is if the one needing correcting is amenable to this. In the true spirit of blogging, Dean, you not only accepted criticism and correction, but used it as a springboard to further dialogue, so kudos to you.
I heard Dennis Praeger the other day say that he is perhaps it the only pundit who enjoys and looks forward to being corrected by his listeners - I don't listen to him often enough to know if he really believes it - but this is an awesome sentiment. I think our job as bloggers is to add to and improve the general pool of information out there. Only ego can get in the way of that.
I will say that bloggers who accept comments and trackbacks are probably going to be better and faster about responding to criticism--not always, but as a general rule.
The thing that struck me is that Posner, linked in the Instapundit link, is finally figuring out what Bill Quick figured out years ago. The "blogosphere" is a very good description for what the blogs do, just like an 'ecosphere', each part supports the whole.
Blogland or something similar wouldn't have gotten the flavor of the total gestalt (forgive me for using that word).
Also notice, the blogs that don't allow the 'other side' to sound off (like DU and Kos) tend to not have much influence outside their side of the spectrum.
Kos gets more hits more than anybody but does his site get things done? Does it get candidates elected? Nope. INDC, Protein Wisdon, Allah and LGF brought down Dan Rather. They allow the other side to argue as long as they aren't just Tony Foresta types who just derail a thread. Kos and company brought down Gannon/Guckert and his, well, you know.
Echo chambers don't work in the blogosphere, they might be popular among true believers, but others just get turned off. It's like the dodo, they survived because they were cut off from the rest of the world, when the world intruded they lost out. If there had been more competition for them they might have evolved in such a way as to ensure that their eggs were safer.
SMA, you are not A spectrumologist. You are THE spectrumologist.
All you bloggers will be pleased to know (or maybe filled with consternation) when I tell you that I first head for the blogsites to find out what's interesting enough to follow up on.
Then I carefully read the source material. That way, I learn if my favorite bloggers got it right, or are full of horsefeathers that morning.
Mike: That description of the blogosphere as an ecosphere, and particularly why some popular sites are ineffective and meaningless while others are not, is pretty much the best I've read.
Actually, SMA, I am starving myself of carbohydrates for purposes of keeping down to man and a half. The essence of a man should be expansive; his body ought not. I, like you, admire G K Chesterton for his spirit. I should not wish to resemble him for his profile.
I think the editors will grab onto the blogosphereic content as new people move up into editing who are not scared of this thing. The current ones might, but only in the way that a drowning man will fasten onto a matchstick.
Unfortunately, the news media has consolidated to the point that they have so many fossils running around who will not leave and who cannot abide by any change. Think Mike Wallace and the whole stable of syndicated columnists. They've been around for decades, they're not going anywhere. And they haven't gone anywhere into anything new, for years. In a way, they resemble the Detroit automakers - just as the first Toyotas arrived. Whether they will continue to bear that resemblance in future years is up to them. But I'm not optomistic about their chances.
Reminds me of a line of dialogue that I recall from an old-time Hollywood epic, "They Died With their Boots On". One of the many retellings of General George Armstrong Custer and the battle of Little Big Horn.
Custer (Errol Flynn), thinking he will not survive the battle he knows is coming with Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and the assembled tribes of the northern plains, is standing at the bar of the 7th Cavalry's stockaded post. He is talking with Sharp, an officer who has envied and hated him since West Point.
(Sharp) What'll we drink to?
(Custer) Let's drink to glory.
(Sharp) You were always big on glory, weren't you?
(Custer) Well, there's one thing you can say for glory.
(Sharp) What's that?
(Custer) You can always take it with you. When it's your time to go. (Staring meaningfully at Sharp, who sort of shrinks into the woodwork.)
---
What Custer thought of glory can be equated with character. It is one of these qualities, or achievements, that you can take with you. When it's your time to go.
"In effect, the blogosphere is a collective enterprise - not 12 million separate enterprises, but one enterprise with 12 million reporters, feature writers and editorialists, yet with almost no costs."
I'm going to have to disagree with this, at least partly. Blogs, bloggers, are 12 million separate enterprises, very independent from each other and quite often extremely contrary to each other. And I find a great many more editorialists than simple reporters. Speaking for myself, at such (all too rare) times as I blog, I'm mainly a spectrumologist. Eric Scheie (Classical Values) has often been a historian. Others are largely theologians, philosophers, appreciators of arts or literature, etc.. In many ways, the blogosphere resembles a library or a university more than a newspaper. It's the journalistic bloggers who get the most publicity in journalism, of course. And probably my own perspective is skewed because I look for the more cantankerous bloggers.
Very interesting synchronicity about "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". My brother (a programmer) happened to mention that article when we were discussing Spengler's dualism of the Cathedral and the Castle.
I heard Dennis Praeger the other day say that he is perhaps it the only pundit who enjoys and looks forward to being corrected by his listeners - I don't listen to him often enough to know if he really believes it - but this is an awesome sentiment. I think our job as bloggers is to add to and improve the general pool of information out there. Only ego can get in the way of that.
Blogland or something similar wouldn't have gotten the flavor of the total gestalt (forgive me for using that word).
Also notice, the blogs that don't allow the 'other side' to sound off (like DU and Kos) tend to not have much influence outside their side of the spectrum.
Kos gets more hits more than anybody but does his site get things done? Does it get candidates elected? Nope. INDC, Protein Wisdon, Allah and LGF brought down Dan Rather. They allow the other side to argue as long as they aren't just Tony Foresta types who just derail a thread. Kos and company brought down Gannon/Guckert and his, well, you know.
Echo chambers don't work in the blogosphere, they might be popular among true believers, but others just get turned off. It's like the dodo, they survived because they were cut off from the rest of the world, when the world intruded they lost out. If there had been more competition for them they might have evolved in such a way as to ensure that their eggs were safer.
Many times worse, actually. Stinking hypocrites.
All you bloggers will be pleased to know (or maybe filled with consternation) when I tell you that I first head for the blogsites to find out what's interesting enough to follow up on.
Then I carefully read the source material. That way, I learn if my favorite bloggers got it right, or are full of horsefeathers that morning.
Good system of checks and balances? You betcha.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Thank you! And I still say you are man and a half, or man and a half and a half -- and a half.
One cannot be too thin.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Unfortunately, the news media has consolidated to the point that they have so many fossils running around who will not leave and who cannot abide by any change. Think Mike Wallace and the whole stable of syndicated columnists. They've been around for decades, they're not going anywhere. And they haven't gone anywhere into anything new, for years. In a way, they resemble the Detroit automakers - just as the first Toyotas arrived. Whether they will continue to bear that resemblance in future years is up to them. But I'm not optomistic about their chances.
I was referring to your character.
---
Reminds me of a line of dialogue that I recall from an old-time Hollywood epic, "They Died With their Boots On". One of the many retellings of General George Armstrong Custer and the battle of Little Big Horn.
Custer (Errol Flynn), thinking he will not survive the battle he knows is coming with Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and the assembled tribes of the northern plains, is standing at the bar of the 7th Cavalry's stockaded post. He is talking with Sharp, an officer who has envied and hated him since West Point.
(Sharp) What'll we drink to?
(Custer) Let's drink to glory.
(Sharp) You were always big on glory, weren't you?
(Custer) Well, there's one thing you can say for glory.
(Sharp) What's that?
(Custer) You can always take it with you. When it's your time to go. (Staring meaningfully at Sharp, who sort of shrinks into the woodwork.)
---
What Custer thought of glory can be equated with character. It is one of these qualities, or achievements, that you can take with you. When it's your time to go.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Excellent.