In Defense of Jay Rosen
Dean
Jay Rosen recently shut down comments on this thread on press bias. Some people, notably Neuro-Con and Neo-Neocon are commenting negatively on it--not in an overtly snide way, but still a negatively analytical way that, frankly, makes me a wee bit uncomfortable. Note that I am not criticizing Neo-Neocon or Neuro-Conservative, I merely say that I am uncomfortable with their conclusions.
First off, I find myself wondering if I didn't somehow contribute to Professor Rosen's shutdown. Not that I took part in the discussion thread he shut down, but because of trackbacks I sent where I was extremely harsh towards the press. Now, to be clear, I don't take back anything I said, but I cringed a bit when I sent the trackback, as I suspected Rosen might take it personally. Which may help explain why I'm having some conflicted feelings about the criticisms of Rosen, and the second-guessing about his motives.
I'm struggling to find the right way to articulate this without sounding arrogant. It comes from having spent a few years at this blogging game, and from having been more than once subject to intense scrutiny myself. Maybe I will sound arrogant in saying what I'll say, but, I'll say it anyway.
I instituted comment account registration here on Dean's World for a reason: I got tired of taking personal abuse hurled at me and my family. I also got tired of playing host to people who routinely mis-stated my opinion, accused me of believing things I don't believe, saying things I didn't say, questioning my honesty and my integrity, quoting me out of context, and questioning my motives. I'll argue with anyone all day long about ideas, but as soon as you start making me the subject, I'm done--I have nothing more to say to you.
I am frequently accused of banning people because I won't tolerate disagreement. This is false, because I get comments every day (and I do mean every day) from people who disagree with me. Yet that accusation still bothers me whenever it's thrown my way.
I implemented trackback banning for similar reasons. I get trackbacks every day from people who disagree with me, but people who habitually--I said habitually--call me names, call my integrity into question, distort what I say, and so on? I just won't host trackbacks from them.
I may seem like I'm getting far afield here, but stay with me.
Most of what I describe above is a function of traffic. On a good day, some 10,000 people read this blog. I have difficulty wrapping my head around that, but there it is. So if even 1% of those people are snotty jerks, well, that's a hundred people. Go back to High School and remember what it was like when you had people whose mission in life seemed to be to make your life miserable--and imagine a hundred of them.
Holy crap dude. You'd commit suicide, wouldn't you?
You may still think I'm off-base here. Please stay with me before responding.
There is a thing which happens to you when you run a blog, when you suddenly find yourself the subject of intense scrutiny. You pick a topic, and you take a controversial position. You talk about it, and a bunch of other bloggers link it. Suddenly your blog--and you--are the subject of an incredible sh**storm of people who radically disagree with what you have to say. Quite often, this takes you by complete surprise. Other times you expected the storm, but you didn't anticipate it being quite as intense as it turned out to be. You were braced, but you were still overwhelmed.
Some bloggers who undergo this quit blogging entirely. Others become angry and lash out. Still others desperately grasp for a quick solution to make the firehose of negativity shut off.
So who is Jay Rosen? He's a man who has dedicated his entire life to the subject of journalism. It's a profession with its faults and limitations, many of which he acknowledges. But he obviously loves it, and is passionate about--so much so that he not only went to school for it and practiced it, but also chose to teach it to others. In many ways, there is no higher calling than when you choose to dedicate your life to teaching a subject you love.
Moreover, he's shown himself, repeatedly, to be willing to accept criticism of his profession, and even to criticize it himself. He's also gone out of his way to engage with people who criticize his profession, to talk with them instead of just batting them away.
Now imagine you set up a blog to discuss this profession you love and are proud of, and you take a tough position. It's linked by multiple sources. You suddenly get slammed with comments and trackbacks from hundreds of people who are extremely negative about your profession and your point of view.
Imagine on top of that the possibility that maybe you've had a bad day, or a bad week.
I've nearly quit blogging a few times because of such incidents. I've certainly lost my temper more than once. After years at this game I've developed a fairly thick skin, but it's still hardly impossible to get under it.
So. Jay Rosen started a discussion with Austin Bay, and opened his blog up for public comment, and a bunch of people (me among them) poured out tons of criticism of something he loves: journalism. The criticism was withering and went on for days, and he finally said "screw this" and shut off the firehose. Maybe he was a little snippy about it.
Does it need to be analyzed further than that? I mean, Jay's just this guy, you know?
Related Posts (on one page):
When you point out the hypocrisy, they bitch about you taking their words out of context. I don't have any problem with Jay shutting off the comments. It's his blog, after all. Besides, the whole conversation will start up again the next time he posts.
I know. I participate actively.
I think Dean is probably right. Jay just had a bad day.
Amen, brother. The taller your soapbox, the more tomatoes get thrown at you. That's why I quit.
There are over 42,000 words in that thread. I read the beginnings, some random samples from the middle, and end. I have no idea what you or he is talking about. I could read a novela or some such in that time.
I did find Jay Rosen's conclusion extremely lame. Apparently he posted something interesting to many; went on vacation; came back to find 42,000 words of discussion which he had completely failed to direct or moderate or terminate, and was shocked and dismayed that the torrent did not meet with his approval. Poor baby.
Better go back to studying journalism in ivory halls than journalizing.
Food for much thought.
Yours,
Wince
-Arthur Silber
To an important degree, the fate of the blogging community may be tied to these same forces of survival, competition and decline. Perhaps the greatest danger posed by the harshest "Koz" style of vitriolic abuse and rhetorical toiletries, is to iconify the discrediting of the blogger community and stand as "evidence" as to why blogs and bloggers should be "regulated" as, you know, they are not really "Journalists" doing "Journalism" like the real experts coming through the chairs of the corpolitical media farm club networks which absorb degreed journalists like professional sports teams absorb college athletes. Americans frequently complain about the poor reporting of the news media. Perhaps it is exactly because they are Journalists, and not reporters.
Jay Rosen is in denial about the role and responsibility of the press.
In Vietnam, the anti-war (Cronkite+): US OUT NOW.
The Nixon-Ford policy: US OUT NOW (no support for S. Vietnam after the North violated their Paris peace agreement; little Leftist reporting on the violation)
The result: "end" of the war, and SE Asian genocide.
(See neo-neo-con's great "A Mind is Difficult Thing to Change).
The lack of moral responsibility for the results of following the anti-war policy is the heart of the moral rot in the left.
In Iraq, either the press makes no difference (nobody believes this), or: it Increases or Decreases the number of US soldiers killed.
The Moral Hazard of a Free Press is that more Americans are killed than if it was merely "Public Relations for Bush" (from John Cole? in an earlier PressThink thread). The most are killed when it is Public Relations for the terrorists, which is almost equal to PR against Bush.
Jay's lack of refutation ... is his declaration I'm psychotic.
Rosen might have been having a bad day - or he might not have learned yet that he's the Lord High Master of his Blog...and thus doesn't have to put up with that shit, at least not on his blog; the time to nip unfair comments is in the bud...
However, to those who haven't plowed through the comments section in question, I'll say that that particular thread didn't seem to feature a high volume of nasty attacks on Mr. Rosen himself. Nor was it even a particularly rabid group of comments in general, especially considering its great length. Comments threads sometimes degenerate into mindless name-calling, but this one had quite a bit of substance--and, in the main, I think people were trying to be relatively polite (especially for the blogosphere) and to discuss the issues. That's why Rosen's behavior seemed so puzzling to me.
What's the significance of it all, and why bother talking about it? Is Rosen "just a guy?" Well, of course he is. But he is also a guy who is a champion of the idea that journalists need to engage in a conversation with readers, of "people-first, bottom-up 'public journalism' ". When in that thread he seemed to cut off such "conversation" in an especially testy and condescending manner, and seemed angry that people were accusing the press of bias, his behavior was arguably both hypocritical and a microcosm of the larger issue of whether the press is guilty of arrogance and one-sidedness (the subject matter of many of the comments). So, although certainly not of earth-shattering importance, his act took on a somewhat larger significance than the simple and rather unremarkable fact that Jay Rosen had closed down comments on a particular thread.
It isn't people who disagree and put forth a different point of view. Those are fun. I hate giving up that to put a gag on the few, but there aren't many other options. It's people who view comments as open season on the blog owner that cannot and should not be given a platform to be petty.
But it is also what Mr. den Beste had to deal with: the nit picking. You can write 10,000 words on the topic of apples, but if you write 5 words on oranges (even as AN ASIDE) and use a phrase like "something like 5% of a group" your comments focus only on that. These idiots seem to believe that if they shoot down those 5 words they've essentially refuted your entire argument.
Sick of it.
And then there's the whole Devil's Advocate thing. I love playing Devil's Advocate in person, although I usually avoid it online.
Hopefully I've avoided nitpicking for it's own sake.
Yours,
Wince
I read PressThink pretty often. My impression is that Jay is a great guy. That said, I agreed with most of the commenters. I thought the comments, though relentless, were generally civil and well-stated. I thought the reaction from Steve and Jay was unfair and unwarranted. But that's just the reality from this point of view.
Part of the difficulty for Jay is precisely the fact that he's pretty open-minded and is willing to listen to the other side. There is tremendous resentment of the press and their actions among millions of Americans (I assert). People don't like being lied to and manipulated, whether by the government *or* the press. The vast majority of the MSM takes a la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you approach to all that when it applies to themselves, which just fuels further resentment, that has no outlet. Jay provides one of the rare outlets where it seems like you can "talk back" to the press. So he gets an overload of this stuff. You sometimes see the same phenomenon at Jeff Jarvis' blog, the Poynter website, etc.
I UNDERSTAND the frustration, but I don't sympathize. Bloggers have control of their sites. Dean is free to ban certain commenters. Jay Rosen is free to cut off a comment thread. And Steven Den Beste is free to quit blogging. All of that is UNDERSTANDABLE.
SometimesMany times in life, you find out that the cost of what you thought you were prepared to pay. That's life.I APPRECIATE guys like Dean, Jay Rosen and Steven Den Beste sharing their thoughts in a public forum and providing a forum for feedback. I ENJOY responding to SOME of their articles.
But just the other day, Dean called me a "Christian Bigot" for my opinions about some issues. That's his prerogative. He and I have agreed and disagreed on many issues. He even castigated some of us for NOT responding to a post the other day. Oh well. I don't have to respond to his provocation any more than he has to respond to me. I can just disagree quietly. That is MY prerogative.
I have my own web log to which I post very sparingly. I am sometimes jealous of Dean for his traffic, but I made the decision a while back that I did not want the responsibility that Dean has taken on in hosting this site. So I ADMIRE him for being willing to do so.
In Summary, 1) I admire active bloggers, 2) I appreciate active bloggers, and 3) I even understand their frustration. I don't have a problem with them controlling the commenters and/or the comments on their blogs - or even quitting (although I really do miss Steven Den Beste's riveting prose.) But do I sympathize? Sorry, no.
I never ran advertising and I never accepted any contributions. I paid for all that out of pocket. I also spend several hours per day, pretty much 7 days per week except when I was on vacation, writing for my site.
Was I not entitled to any consideration at all for that? You concentrate on what you see as my duty to allow others to run me down and make me feel bad. Why do I owe that to anyone? In exchange for all the money and time I invested, why do I only have duties, and no privileges or considerations?
In the last major post I made, where I wrote about why I was quitting, I said this: I've learned something interesting: if you give away ice cream, eventually a lot of people will complain about the flavors, and others will complain that you aren't also giving away syrup and whipped cream and nuts.
You've just proved it again. Go screw yourself.
You totally misread my comment.
Sure you're entitled to some consideration. You have my admiration, appreciation, and understanding. And you have every right to regulate your website as you see fit. You don't need my pity.
I never said it was your "duty" to allow others to run you down and make you feel bad. I never said that at all. In fact, I admitted that I didn't have the gumption to expose myself like you did. But doing so was your choice. Why should I feel pity on you for the choices you make/made.
I respect your choice to shut down your site, although I miss your writing. But I never said you "owed" me any writing - just that I missed it. How exactly was I being caustic or derogatory?
One other thing. I emailed you once to request some references on a topic you had written about. You responded to me, and accomodated my request, but the tone of your response was hostile. It was something of an oxymoron - hostile accomodation. I never wrote back bashing you for your hostility. I just sent back an email thanking you for the links to your previous articles and made a note in my mind to leave you alone after that.
Also, your essays in the Fall of 2002, prior to the invasion of Iraq were instrumental in changing my mind from opposing the invasion to supporting it. So I appreciate the time and effort you made to write and post those essays. But that is all you get. Appreciation. No pity.
Of course it gets old after the 400th person does it. No matter how respectful.
But sometimes people bring up points that are very important to them, but not important to you. A man with a passion for carbon nanotubes points out a mistake which is not crucial to you, but it is to him.
That gets really old after the 400th person does it. No matter how respectful. But how can I tell without reading your mind? Well, DWL was a good idea.
I am absolutely certain I've subjected people to this. Sorry, but not very. For me the whole point of this is to discuss things that are important to me. That's the fun bit.
I have utterly glossed over the reading comprehension problems, the logical fallacies, the angry fixations on particular problems, etc. etc. etc.
I am unfortuneately certain I've subjected people to these things too. I'm very sorry for that.
I have a solution, if you are interested. The real problem is scale. Handling twenty regular commenters is quite doable, if they are well chosen. 200,000 commenters? Not so much.
I noticed you had a great way of managing your blogroll. May I suggest the salon commenter policy? By invitation only. Pick twenty people whom you have interacted with on other blogs. Invite them to join your internet salon.
We don't expect to all join television roundtables. Why should we all expect to join every internet roundtable?
Mrs. du Toit compares her site to her living room. Well, I don't invite everyone with an internet connection into my house! (Actually, I'm kind of picky about that.) So let's make it more like something real human beings can do, at a realistic human scale using a model which matches our genesis in small familial bands.
People will still complain. You should hear my daughters.
Just a notion.
Yours,
Wince
Yours,
Wince
Now, if someone cut me off, I ASSUME that there must be some emergency which impels them to be in front of me. If someone gets angry at me for driving a certain way, I ASSUME that they had a bad day at the office, or perhaps had a fight with their wife. The source of their anger isn't really me. I am just a temporary object of their anger.
Right at this moment, I am trying to teach my youngest child, an 11 year old girl, not to get so upset over every little issue. While I understand her frustrations with her older siblings, I do not find her behavior acceptable. She overreacts. So as a loving parent, I am purposely provoking her, and then demanding she get control of her emotions. Its a process of training. I realize it may seem cruel to her, but having already been through this process with my older daughter, I know that she will become a better adjusted person in the end.
The point is that we have control of our reactions to the idiots of life. (And sometimes, we are the idiots of life.)
I am interested in that training idea, however.
Yours,
Wince
The good news is that since that ordeal, she has become much more pleasant to be around. She doesn't take herself too seriously. And when she regresses, I simply have to remind her of what I put her through. That seems to be enough motivation for her to stop regressing.
The result is that she has become a quite popular girl in school because she can take it as well as dish it out. And the bonus is that she has become quite the Daddy's girl. She appreciates the effort I made to change her behavior because she can see the benefit.
The downside is you must be willing to be the bad guy - for a long time. Daughters can be very stubborn. You have to artificially get all emotional and overreact to little things that you would otherwise ignore for the express purpose of demonstrating the absurdity of her overreactions. Its time consuming and tedious - but worth it.
The other thing is you must be very open about what you are doing. My youngest daughter witnessed what I did to my oldest daughter. And I have given her fair warning that because of her poor attitude, I am about to do the same thing to her.
Ah, parenthood. Ain't it a blast.
*****
As for the problem of scale, are you suggesting that we owe bloggers our sympathy and pity for the curse of being successful? Understanding, admiration, appreciation, even gratitude - Sure. But pity? Please.
Steven, I'm a long time fan of your old site. I've agreed with you at times, and disagreed at others.
This is the first thing you've ever said that caused me to lose respect for you.
Scott was completely polite, and made a point of saying that he fully supported your decision.
You are out of line, and Scott deserves an apology.
I'm still trying to figure out an answer to that question. Just give me a few more minutes.
Ok. I think I've got. Maybe because respect is a two-way street? Naaah. Couldn't be that.
Nevermind.
After trying a measured response to Den Beste's first exhortation to "Go Screw Yourself," I must admit that his follow up question surely primed my sarcasm pump. But in the end, all he got was a dribble of sarcasm. If I thought it would serve an useful purpose, I'd really unload on him. But what would be the point.
Steven Den Beste is what he is. I'm not his Daddy. Certainly no one is his conscience. If he wants to treat us with contempt and disdain, that is his prerogative. Most of us have already met the genius with the personality of a rattlesnake in our personal lives. One more intelligent reptile, more or less, is tolerable.
Who defended snarky commenters? Not I. There is no defense for being impolite or inconsiderate to someone who hosts a web log. But does that mean that I am required to pity the host because some commenters are indefensibly rude?
Should we pity the celebrity for being famous?
Should we pity the wealthy because it is so difficult to deal with the intricate laws associated with trust funds?
I reserve my pity for those who are trapped in situations beyond their control. Being a successful blogger is not one of those situations.