It looks like there are more than a few who feel there is an unspoken 'Progressive Pecking Order'.
Yesterday, I emailed Jesse at pandagon.net asking him to have a look at the article and, if he would be so kind, provide some comments either by email, my comments section or his own site. Well, he gave his own views in a post entitled 'Blog Elitists?':
In a Norquistian twist, conservative bloggers promote communalism and liberal bloggers tend to promote individualism, at least in my reading.
I'm not sure if it's elitism as much as it is a lack of the same romantic idealization of this act, but it's definitely something to think about.
Unfortunately, the comments to his article quickly degenerated into a "we hate Instapundit" fest of rightwing blog bashing, led by Atrios. Interestingly, I had sent the same email to Atrios four days previously with still no reply, yet he was first poster on comments when the pandagon story went out. John Moltz made the best of the points on the theme when he noted that lefty bloggers at least try to add something to the links they cite, while rightie blogs often become circle-jerks of "agreeing with Agreed". That wasn't the point of my story.
Others concentrated on the idea of increasing the readership of smaller leftie blogs by linking to them from the larger blogs. I was really, really happy at the spike in my readership yesterday due entirely to the pandagon link and story. I get all warm and fuzzy when I look at the spike on the stats graph. I will be truly satisfied if some of those new readers hang around, read the rest of the blog, become regular visitors, make comments and contribute to the Newshog dialogue.
But that isn't really the point either.
Tas at LoadedMouth got part of the point by citing an email from Rimone at Dateline Bristol. The post, entitled 'Being frank and blunt about the Left Blogosphere' talks about both the issues noted above, but also about the insularity of the "blogging aristocracy".
One thing that you have to give the right credit for is a unified message, and their ability to stay on message. George Lakoff touched upon this in his book, "Don't think about the elephant!" Basically, the right is able to make calculated moves which combine strategies so they hit more than one point at once, and this is a tactic that the left has yet to figure out how to do. Could this explain why the left side of the blogosphere is never able to get behind one story and stick with it?
Apologists for the "major league" in pandagon comments have noted that a lot of the feedback they get is simply a troll-fest which they must surely be disinclined to wade through to find the stuff worth carrying forward. Boy, does this miss the point. The readership wades through the 300 plus posts on a Kevin Drum or Atrios story, sometimes several of them in one day! Why can't the "aristocrats"?
Right there, you finally reach the kernel of the problem. Not just being agreed with, which is passive, but actively watching for new opinions you can promote and bring to the fore to further the progressive movements' understanding of issues. Progressive politics should be about "the rights you earned through the obligations you fulfilled". The major leftwing bloggers are missing the obligations they took on by getting into the business of being the leading voices in the progressive cybercommunity...exactly what they accuse the DNC and the centrists in D.C. of doing!
It is hipocracy, pure and simple. That's the point.
UPDATE Now the right-leaning blogs have caught up on the "We hate Instapundit" thread that began with this discussion. Following form, they all agree with each other that trolls are trolls are trolls, whetrher right or left wing, and conservative bloggers "hate the enemy" neither more nor less than liberal bloggers. The thing is, they are right. The best of the comment comes from The Moderate Voice. Interesting stuff, but not the original point.
And More... upyernoz from Rubber Hose appears to think that any sense of injustice from the smaller progressive bloggers comes from a mistaken sense of 'entitlement' just because they mistakenly believe they belong to the same community as the larger bloggers.
maybe i'm reading too much into this, but the whole thing smells a little of link entitlement syndrome, a malady that i only really got a full sense of last month when i was guest-posting for atrios and started getting a flood of desperate emails.
On the LoadedMouth comments (see the LoadedMouth link above) he also reveals that "getting a link for me really has more to do with my own laziness than anything else"
Well, there we have it. Atrios tried distracting us with the "we hate Instapundit" thing, now upyernoz, Atrios' guest blogger, is trying this feeble distraction.
We all know it isn't about entitlement! It isn't about links!!! To say otherwise insults our intelligence. But we DO think it would be nice if it was about merit, and casting the net wider for informed, sensible comment and opinions. It isnt, according to upyernoz...its about laziness.
So thats ok then. It isn't about ELITIST aristos, it's about LAZY aristos. No wonder the working-man voter feels alienated from them. And then they wonder why the Republicans won....sheesh
9 comments:
That's an interesting concept Cernig about people who post loads of links etc.
Here is my personal opinion.
I prefer to read posts that are written by a person, rather than look up loads of links proving points.
In fact, if there is a post with loads of links I usually ignore it.
Anybody can quote any other body these days to back them up, and the fact that many people ignore the links leaves the impression that the poster has proved a point because he has lots of back-up.
In fact, the opposite is usually true.
I am interested in what comes out of a person's head when he needs it, and not what comes out of a computer when he is lost for words.
Besides, the best learning experience is listening to other people's opinions.
shadows
Hi Shadows,
That's an interesting take on the "trackback" thing. I find myself thinking about my own stuff and whether I rely too much on links that nobody will click. I try to give a few links to provide background or substantiating information, if at all possible from the mainstream reporters who actually go see for themselves rather than just opinionate from an office. But then I also try to provide my own thoughts or my own experiences where relevant. The exception is the news briefs, but there I try really hard to not just regurgitate the main stories but to find an interesting or different slant on the main stories.
Heres a sort of conneceted thought. One thing all us bloggers should remember is that without the much-maligned Mainstream Media, we wouldn't have reporters out in the field, sending back the stories we opinionate on. That isn't going to change until blogging becomes so mainstream that the media companies are willing to fund bloggers to go do their own real life reporting. Think that will ever happen?
I have to wonder if this might not be a symptom of a deeper characteristic of leftist/liberal psychology. I say this because I have at least one leftist friend who gets very upset at me when I just send him links to stories I find interesting that seem to convey some of what I am trying to say. His feeling is that unless I can express my thought in my own words without using the crutch of someone elses thoughts then it just isn't worth his time to read it.
Similarly, there appear to be some in the blogosphere, especially on the left, who hate blogs that are nothing more then collections of links to other blogs. They want original content, not warmed over hash.
I can understand, but it misses the point: a lot of people LIKE warmed over hash. It's the way they are used to receiving the information they need to get through life. They don't have a lot of time for four course mealse. They just want their Big Mac and their Super Sized fries, thank you very much.
This attitude of, "if it isn't original and illuminating than it isn't worth my time" IS a form of elitism and it isn't a surprise that it turns off the hoi-paloi.
Hell, it turns ME off and I usually AGREE with what the "elitists" are saying.
I think that there are two things going on here.One is that people want your own opinion whatever the news,and the other is that when you post links instead of comment or opinion it seems to me a little elitist...I know better than you do, and to prove it here is a page full of links.
But that's just me.
I am not as good on the net as most people, and I rely on people adding their comments to the news.
For instance if the staff on TDG did not comment on most of the items they post I would maybe not bother to look at them.
In other words, a comment from the poster is a big drawing card for me.
I don't know how the rest of y'all think.
And Cernig, yes I do think that bloggers one day will be a far more important addition to news gathering.
Remember Tariq Ali the Baghdad blogger and the effect he had on what was happening during the bombing of Baghdad.
shadows
"the rights you earned through the obligations you fulfilled"
You sure you're a Progressive? That sounds *exactly* like something a Republican would say. :) That business about "obligations" - I've heard very little (read: no) mention of such a thing by a leftist in a long time.
20 years ago I probably would have agreed with you politically about 90% of the time. Today it's more likely 20%, if that. But I applaud your moderate and thoughtful voice, and your willingness to *discuss*. Keep up the good work! :)
DSmith
tnor.org
Hi All,
Thanks for the posts, all thought provoking stuff. I have to thank Jesse at pandagon again for picking up the original article when others didn't even seem to notice. I will say it again - I feel my point was adequately made when Atrios didnt respond to an email sent 4 days earlier than the one to Jesse, but was the first to comment when Jesse posted his opinion.
He (Atrios) also took pains to attempt a deflection of the issue into an attack on conservative blogging styles, in full and certain knowledge that the trolls would jump on the bandwagon and obscure the original point. Then yesterday he posts a list of blogs he reads but doesnt link to enough, with no explanation as to why...
As far as my being a leftie or liberal, I actually think of myself as an enlightened anarchist/socialist.
I am not much interested in toeing ANY party line. Much as I despise Tony Blair as a person, he got ONE thing correct. Progressives and conservatives both must throw off the kindergarten politics (its left/right and I am left/right so I support it even if it flies in the face of reality)of past decades. It isn't a question of whether a given policy is right or left, but whether I think it will WORK that determines whether I support it.
The quote about rights and obligations comes from the writing of William McIllvanny - a fellow Scotsman, a socialist and journalist of some renown back home. In context, he is talking about the politically-correct liberalism that sees vandalism and petty crime by the poor on the poor as being excuseable because of their circumstances.
The iron decency that formed the core of working-class values came from the fact that, as well as judging society, they judged their own kind hard. They had to. They couldn’t afford the sort of silly snobbery that says whatever working-class people do can be excused because of their circumstances, and they must not be called bad names. They knew that anti- social behaviour preys on its own. They despised it. They didn’t call a spade a horticultural implement. They knew that chancers were chancers, and not to be accommodated.
What this new kind of mealy-mouthed socialism is doing is taking an inheritance of power earned in the sweat of many generations and distributing it aimlessly, whether the recipients have any respect for it or not. Socialism was never about automatic tolerance of malefactors. How could that ever work? It was about the rights you earned through the obligations you fulfilled.If you agree with that, maybe you aren't a Republican? Or just maybe you are a Republican who agrees with one basic old-time hard-nosed socialist principle that was learned the hard way.
Regards, Cernig
wow, you've managed to totally mangle my point. see my response to your comment here. you're "it's about laziness" comment makes me wonder if you understand what i am writing at all.
the funniest thing about all this is that i am a small-time blogger myself. look around, i don't get many hits, the "big name" sites do not have me on their blogroll. i am willing to bet that most of your readers never heard of me before you linked to me in your update. my obscurity is actually quite okay with me. i don't want to be a big time blogger. i got a taste of it guest posting for atrios and found that blogging on a site that is actually read by a lot of people creates a feeling of responsibility that takes all the fun out of blogging.
blogging is a low priority in my life and i want it to stay that way. there are just more important things i do. for you and tas to deem me an "aristocrat" (the basis for which i cannot discern) and then to criticize me for not living up to my obligations to support the commoners is really a joke.
Hi upyernoz,
Thank you for posting a reply on my blog. Please know that your interest is appreciated, and I hope this healthy debate (at least it is by the standards of my old philosophy classes, and no doubt yours)is leading others to think about the issues concerned.
A couple of points if I may:
1) You say that the debate has spread to my blog, when actually it was my original post that LoadedMouth picked up.
2) On my blog, you say that "you're "it's about laziness" comment makes me wonder if you understand what i am writing at all."
I may not, I will admit. However, I know I quoted you correctly since cntrl - c is bipartisan and impartial. Having said that, I feel that you are misunderstanding the issue when you say that "the whole thing smells a little of link entitlement syndrome". I suspect you have not read my original post. It isn't about links, it is about the BIG bloggers looking outwith their peer group and promulgating them. Beyond that, politeness leads to a link to the actual source article (not the blog as a whole. It is undeniable that the BIG bloggers on the liberal/progressive side dont do this enough.
3)I accept you are not an Aristo and that any association with an aristo is contingent.. To be an aristo does not mean being rich in the local currency however, it means being insular, arrogant, given to distracting conceits, and having no thought for the commonality.
4) The meme has spread to the Interesting Times blog too.
cernig,
(1) yeah, i realize that the debate was already ongoing when i stumbled onto it. by "spread into your blog" i guess i was referring more to the fact that i had migrated over to your blog and started to argue there.
(2) it is about the BIG bloggers looking out with their peer group and promulgating them.well, i may not be a big blogger, but i suspect that, like what i write, the links they create reflect what they read. and, like everyone else, the big guys probably have a set of favorite sites that they return to more often than others. you may think they should look at more sites, but, like everyone else their time is limited and the internet is simply too big. my laziness comment was kind of a joke, but not entirely. the fact is, we are all too lazy in hunting up the perfect site to link to and tend to fall back on places we know--look at your own blogroll. that's more a product of finite time than any moral failing. at least in my opinion.
i know you don't buy my link entitlement syndrome theory, but i really can't see why this isn't anything but a couple of bloggers whining that they haven't gotten more links and hits, or that people who get thousands of emails a day didn't write a personal reply to your messages. you're dressing this up as "support" but really you want something more concrete than that.
my question to you is why do you care about all of this? and how can you criticize others for not linking to thousands of obscure sites that are out there when there are plenty of blogs you don’t link to either?
(3) i guess that means i am not "being insular, arrogant, given to distracting conceits, and having no thought for the commonality." thanks!
i've met atrios in real life and i think it's really unfair if you're saying he is any of those things. you've declared a set of people as arrogant and set a standard of non-arrogance that no human being with finite time could actually live up to.
(4) thanks! a new forum to stir up trouble
(5) happy new year!
(p.s. i cross posted this comment in the comments to this post back at my site)
Post a Comment