Opinion writers and blog writers
There can be a mistaken view that because a person is given space in a newspaper to air their opinion, then they automatically attain some authority. Appearing under the banner of a national newspaper doesn’t make anyone a better writer, nor does it make them more authoratitive. It does give them an important platform, of course. I don’t pretend that this blog would have the kind of traffic it does if it weren’t on Ireland.com. But authority still has to be earned.
It’s why successful blogs deserve a great deal of credit. Most have had to earn that traffic and authority through their own hard work. They’ve had to do it in a crowded market, and without being able to hide behind good editors and sub-editors (I know this because I would long ago have sunk without them). It doesn’t mean that all blogs - even successful ones - are good, nor that there isn’t a debate to be had about their value, attitude, what attracts attention and what doesn’t. But newspaper opinion writers have an entire structure on which to lean, and despite that some are very bad indeed.
Yes, blogs are unfiltered, but what value is a filtering system when it is aimed only at bringing in opinion writers who agree with the editorial line of a newspaper? Ultimately a blogger’s opinion is as legitimate as any opinion writer’s. It might be badly written. It might be poorly thought-out and woefully explained. It can be hysterical or nonsensical. But so can the opinion columns in our national newspapers.
Very diplomatically done. And I fully agree with you.
Comment by Mark | January 24, 2008 at 12:12 pmWell said Shane!
This is an area that I’m greatly intrigued in, along with the subject of who makes the news.
The whole area of who chooses what I read over the cornflakes and consequently hear on Morning Ireland, Matt Cooper, 6.01 News, PrimeTime is hugely interesting. After reading Conor Brady’s book a few weeks ago of how he managed to decide what was more ‘important news’ over the other, it basically told me that the decision rests with that one man (or woman).
It’s an area that I find greatly engaging and somewhat scary. If anyone knows of any other books like this, please just let me know.
Blogs as an extension are a changeable newspaper. They are akin to discussions in a pub (I wish!). One person starts it. The rest answer. Some know what they are talking about. Some say nothing. But in essence, it’s all there to be read. Take it or leave it!
Comment by Daddy Dec | January 24, 2008 at 12:30 pmWell done Shane,very well written & said.Totally agree with you,”Appearing under the banner of a national newspaper doesn’t make anyone a better writer, nor does it make them more authoratitive”,Mr.Myers anyone??
Comment by Jeff | January 24, 2008 at 12:48 pmWhat he said
Comment by Colin | January 24, 2008 at 2:48 pmShane, is this your way of talking about a certain blog-hating journalist? (please, let’s not even use his name). If it is, it’s inspired!
Comment by Sinead | January 24, 2008 at 2:55 pmInteresting post, Shane. I think it’s unfortunate that journalist’s point was so badly expressed because underneath all the ill-informed bluster lurks an argument that I haven’t seen any bloggers address.
Leaving aside the many brilliant blogs out there everyone knows blogging is also be a breeding ground for hate-filled rants, cruelty, cynicism, negativity, begrudgery and just plain old fashioned meanness.
Twenty Major’s blog, for example, is perfect for the kind of folk who think it most hilarious, insightful even, to call Mary Harney a “fat c**t” several times a day.
He is a hero in the Irish blogging world for precisely this kind of venom. And yet he comes on this blog wearing a totally different mask.
When addressing you Shane he is polite, measured and respectful. He called the anti-blogging journalist “an eejit” on your blog the other day which made me laugh considering the way he usually expresses himself.
It’s almost as though he would quite like a job in The Irish Times and is treating your blog as part of the interview process.
But that can’t be right can it?
It would be great if the many decent bloggers out there were more vocal about the uglier side of the Irish blogosphere.
But I won’t hold my breath.
Comment by DW | January 24, 2008 at 3:37 pmDW, you do realise Twenty is a woman and already works in print but for a Sunday paper, right?
Comment by Damien Mulley | January 24, 2008 at 3:59 pmIt’s almost as though he would quite like a job in The Irish Times and is treating your blog as part of the interview process.
But that can’t be right can it?
No, it can’t, so shove it up your hole.
You c**t.
Comment by Twenty Major | January 24, 2008 at 4:05 pmIs that ok now?
Comment by Twenty Major | January 24, 2008 at 4:09 pmwell said.
DW: I think you’re confusing swearing — which has long been an integral part of the Irish psyche, let’s face it — with stupidity and cruelty.
Anyway, it’s barely relevant — there’s much, much more to the blogging world than Twenty Major alone. Thinking otherwise is a bit like assuming that all newspapers are borderline porn, because of the Sunday Sport.
(no offense intended to Twenty
Comment by Justin | January 24, 2008 at 4:10 pmI’d say it looks like you’ve got the job Twenty…
Comment by Daddy Dec | January 24, 2008 at 4:59 pmNone taken. I think.
Comment by Twenty Major | January 24, 2008 at 4:59 pmDamien - So he’s Amanda Brunker? Makes sense.
Justin - Of course there is much more to blogging, I made that point already.
Comment by DW | January 24, 2008 at 5:10 pmAnd don’t even joke about offending Twenty - he might swear at you in a cruel fashion. That would be terrible.
And don’t even joke about offending Twenty - he might swear at you in a cruel fashion. That would be terrible.
Don’t make me come over there with sticks and stones, DW.
Comment by Twenty Major | January 24, 2008 at 5:38 pmFergal Crehan pointed out on Newstalk that certain journalists might feel threatened by bloggers because they are impinging on those journalists’ position/job. This is a serious point.
Over recent years (particularly since the arrival of the current editor) news coverage in the Times has deteriorated significantly. This is not just true of the Times - the Indo is little more than a collection of syndicated pieces for example. All that is left which is worthwhile is opinion, comment, analysis and features (and property, from the papers’ point of view).
Good quality bloggers challenge the opinion/comment/analysis element of these papers. News sections have deteriorated due to the stewardship of editors, but also due to the irrelevance of a news section which will always be out of date when it hits the shelves (see, for example, Hillary’s win in NH when all Irish papers had expected an Obama win when published).
Journalists like Waters have a great reputation, but like most of the Times commentators, now sound stale and rarely come up with anything fresh. When they do, it tends to be embarrassing rather than enlightening (e.g. crying while he wrote that).
Without wanting to flatter the host, while Shane initially got a hard time from the likes of The Phoenix etc., he appears to have developed and this blog shows another side to his commentary. It also shows that he does not inhabit an Ivory Tower of his own construction (á la Waters).
If the Times continues to regularly and indiscriminately publish the ramblings of Waters, Breda O Brien, Garret FitzGerald (all credit to him, but please … meanderings on things that happened in the mid-90s etc), then any good quality bloggers that come along in Ireland will steal their readership quite easily.
Comment by Bolg | January 24, 2008 at 6:40 pmTwenty Major - still smoking in Dublin bars. Do us all a favour and grow up.
Comment by Spatula | January 24, 2008 at 6:55 pmOk, there’s a hell of a lot going on here and I’m only getting to react now, so sorry if I can’t get to everything.
Daddy Dec - There are a lot of books about journalism, and I won’t pretend that I’ve read even a fraction of them. Andrew Marr’s My Trade springs to mind though, as does Piers Morgan’s The Insider for a very different angle.
Sinead - This obviously this follows on from the Waters comments but I thought I’d try and move things on a bit and mentioning his name tends to attract reactions to him, when I think it would be good to talk about the topic instead. Maybe it looks a bit daft, but I think everyone knows where I’m coming from at this stage.
DW - Blogging is also be a breeding ground for hate-filled rants, cruelty, cynicism, negativity, begrudgery and just plain old fashioned meanness.
Yes it is, and so are some opinion columns. But it is a question for bloggers, whether invective gets you noticed and whether posts and comments that attack are always likely to attract more than others.
Bolg - I’m not keen on becoming a spokesman for the paper as a whole rather than my particular corner of it, but I would say that I genuinely disagree about your views on our news coverage. There are excellent journalists here, both new and established, and we do not rely on wire copy for home or foreign news. I would never suggest that this paper is perfect, or that it doesn’t face challenges in an era when print competes with 24-hour news, but I think it’s way off the mark to say that it has “deteriorated rapidly” when a look through the archive would prove otherwise.
Comment by Shane | January 24, 2008 at 10:17 pmI agree completely Shane on the point of whether invective will get you noticed and I suppose it depends on the motivations of the blogger. Having passed a cursory eye over its evolution in other countries I think its newbreaking element can’t be ignored in the likes of the States while it has also strengthened the relationship between individual writers and their readers while allowing for a platform to respond to criticism and contexualize pieces (Comment is Free – albeit in a slightly different format). Having listened to his arguments (and read the tongue-in-cheek Wikipedia entry) it’s hard to really conclude that Waters’ opinion is based on anything other than ludditism (may not be a real word…). As for the debate – is it really even a debate? Surely in the current media climate people’s own judgement and intuition have to be trusted. If readers really think that anything Ian O’Doherty, David Quinn or indeed Waters (I’m thinking the Katie French piece here) write are based on anything other than an attempt to drum up attention or progress their own prejudices then the logic train has clearly missed their stop and no amount of debate will stop it.
Comment by Seán | January 24, 2008 at 10:54 pmPs – Twenty Major is a legend.
Blogging is a medium populated with junk as well as quite decent stuff. One facet that is present in some blogs but which I think most have come to accept is that fact that people readily post in a manner that they wouldn’t dare to do to someone’s face.
That can be a liberating aspect with quite positives outcomes for many but it can also lead people into thinking that posts have no consequences that they need think about into the future or that might carry the same risk of a thump that saying the same thing in to some in person would carry. It might come as a shock to some but people do remember what they’ve read when they met the poster face to face.
Heinlein said, “an armed society is a polite society” so the blog version might be a society at arms length is potentially a rude society until people realise that they may well have to interact with others within an arms reach.
Just a thought.
Comment by Dan Sullivan | January 25, 2008 at 12:27 amShane my old china I just thought you being a present tense kind of dude should be aware of the latest stupendous and quite incredible bloggynewsystuff:
Twenty Major, in yet another HILARIOUS jape, asked readers of his universally lionised blog to come up with film titles with one letter changed.
HILARIOUS, no?
There were zillions, possibly gazillions, of takers.
Except not really because they comprised the same 20 odd - and i mean odd - contributors, including many, some say as much as 9 per cent, by the major himself. (twentymajor.net)
That’s right people. More than 400 contributions from a miniscule pool of irish people with HILARIOUS names such as flipsticks, crock, walter ego, ibanez, monkey balls, johnny5, twenty major obviously and a few other brave and it has to be said HILARIOUS souls.
So 400 odd posts.
25 odd people responsible for them.
One of them the host.
Without any doubt Mr Major is the king of all irish bloglandia. He should win all the awards and some that haven’t even been invented yet.
Damien, be very afraid.
Comment by Flipsticks | January 25, 2008 at 1:10 amI have already made this point as a comment on another blog, but I guess there’s no harm repeating it here.
In a way I understand how some journalists (no names…) dislike blogs - they have worked their way over the years into a position where their opinions are actively sought then along come some blow-ins with nothing but attitude and an internet connection and some of them get just as much attention if not more!
If you’ve been standing in the rain at a bus stop for over an hour, you’d be rightly pissed off if when the bus actually comes, some guy strolls out his front door at that moment to get on. You’re right to be annoyed, but that doesn’t mean you should stop him getting on. It’s just one of life’s little ironies and it’s up to you to deal with it.
Comment by JL Pagano | January 25, 2008 at 7:09 amVictor Navasky’s A Matter of opinion is excellent. And available in HB in Charlie Byrne’s in Galway for a tenner.
Comment by Simon McGarr | January 25, 2008 at 8:26 amConor Brady’s book was lively and insightful, and some excellent memoirs have been mentioned here. To add to that, if you are looking for a comprehensive survey of the role of the media in democratic societies and it’s influence on how people think, I wouldn’t look further than John Keane’s The Media and Democracy.
When Waters started up his luddite engines, this blog was the first one that I thought of. It’s consistently excellent, provocative and thought-inspiring. There are many, many others. At any rate, I can’t believe that Katie’s biggest fan has been taken so seriously; his distaste for blogs, and the internet in general, is just an extension of his jaundiced views on e-mail circa 1998.
He is a once-great iconoclast - Jiving and the Crossroads is wonderful - who has become a twisted, bitter Luddite. That really is all there is to it.
Great blog, Shane!
Comment by Royston | January 25, 2008 at 9:36 amShane - I don’t question the quality of the news journalists at the Times, but the overall impact of the news coverage has changed. Firstly, the news section seems shorter (as does the whole paper) and there is little depth. The news sections are entirely predictable and very little is added by any news piece. There appears to be no investigative journalism - e.g. the Mahon leaks landed in the paper’s lap, I can’t think of any stories the Times has actually broken. Hence, the news section is somewhat irrelevant. I heard recently the Times is looking into the Guardian model for its website - this would make the news section relevant again, but only online.
In relation to relying on wire copy for news, that’s fine, but my understanding is that the Times cut back hugely on foreign correspondents when the cutbacks were made years ago.
I stand by my comment that the paper has deteriorated rapidly, in general. It’s still the only paper worth reading in Ireland, but that’s not saying much anymore.
(And that’s before we even get to Charles Krauthammer.)
Comment by Bolg | January 25, 2008 at 10:04 amShane,
Generated a lot of debate with this one.
What strikes me as odd is that Waters is saying nothing new. Andrew Keen gave a much more coherent and readable (and still misguided) account of this issue in his book The Cult of the Amateur (http://tinyurl.com/2ls5rv).
There are some slivers of decent points in what both say: Anonymity can be an issue, our social norms have yet to properly accommodate the web’s effects in communication and interaction and because of the ease of use and access it provides a ready platform for speech of a type we rarely see (unfiltered by editors, sub editor, commercial sensitivity or common sense).
But a blogger is a publisher like any other subject to the same laws and with the same responsibilities. Eventually that will be made clear when one goes too far and is sued.
All in all, its a storm in a teacup that will, over time die down as the established media in ireland learns to love blogging for the freedom it give it to act as well as rebel blogger. if you doubt that consider that the New York Times is now an investor in Wordpress (http://tinyurl.com/29kbx9).
Comment by Eoin Purcell | January 25, 2008 at 12:00 pmThere can be a mistaken view that because a person is given space in a newspaper to air their opinion, then they automatically attain some authority.
Shane, well written piece, but unfortunately the view that being a published writer/journalist as opposed to a blogger/internet contributor gives you more authority is far from mistaken, but all too prevalent in society.
John Waters in his “leave my presence” rant summed it up nicely. Certainly among employers, recruitment or government agencies or any of the ‘traditional’ workplaces, the view that the internet is populated by monkeys with keyboards whereas radio journalists, rags like the Tabloids and writers for the broadsheets have earned the right to give their opinion on just about anything, and because they’ve said it, so should it be.
Brendan O’ Connor’s TV career is a good example. The continued readership of Kevin Myers is another. Who would the ‘traditional’ media come to first for comment on a news story, to appear in a TV panel etc?
Newspaper and TV journalists especially, but also anyone involved in the ‘traditional’ media in this country MUST start taking responsibility for what they publish and they way they do. People read what they write and take it seriously, because that’s what we’ve been taught to do - it’s on the news, it must be true. Somewhat brilliantly nowwe’ve started to see even more space in newspapers taken up by retractions, especially in the gutter press. Personally, if a newspaper publishes a proven libelous article, I think they should have their circulation stopped for a day. That would enforce a more rigorous checking of articles and a more responsible breed of journalist.
An important part of why I read most blogs (including Twenty Major’s) is that the writing is obviously from someone who is passionate about their opinion (and who rarely try to pass it off as anything else), who has a sense of humour and who enjoys what they’re doing for the sake of doing it. Certainly, bloggers like Twenty, Damien, Una, Sabrina Dent, Grandad, The Chancer, Rick O Shea etc have flippant and funny posts. Certainly their style may (sometimes) lack that certain polished flavour that an editor and sub editor can bring but the reader (should) know this and enjoy it for what it is.
When, though, it’s an important matter, when it can have an impact or make a change, it’s the bloggers and the blogging community who come out, raise awareness and shout about things. I’m often surprised that newspapers don’t cover the stories raised only to see them a week later. Rick O Shea’s Textsecrets is a great idea. Sabrina’s Two Tits and a Vote another fantastic example of writers passionate about what they do just doing it.
An awful lot of the comments above seem to show how keen these readers at least are to see a standard of reporting in this country that gets away from the puerile, insensitive and insipid tabloid so-called-journalism style, away from the smug luddite because-I-say-so style and into a more “you know, this is my take on it - now what’s yours?” dialogue that will open people’s minds and make them think about what’s going on in the word around them, not just spoonfed and rehashing the arguments they heard on Newstalk.
On a final note, I’m rarely incensed by the insensitivity, stupidity or complete-lack-of-respect-for-their-position by things the bloggers I read daily have to say. I am however often inspired, amused and educated. I simply cannot say the same about Newspaper journalists.
Comment by Darragh | January 25, 2008 at 12:06 pmDreams die with death of Katy
Mon, Dec 10, 2007
The last time I was on the Late Late(before my current flirtation with
an icy demise) was six months ago, that early summer night when Eoghan
Harris, Eamon Dunphy and myself fought over the mind and meaning of
Bertie, and Harris nudged history a little off course, writes John
Waters
Sinead O’Connor sang I Don’t Know How to Love Himas only she can sing.
Dunphy and I had a bet on air that Harris helped me win, and Katy
French flirted for charity with a python, some maggots and
miscellaneous unthinkables as only Katy could flirt.
I was drawn to her afterwards. We shook hands, said hello and she was
gone. It was to be the only time we would meet but it got her into my
head. God, she was beautiful. I don’t mean just physically.
She had a beauty that suggested itself as emanating from an infinity
within. She seemed to believe anything was possible and her smile
convinced you, for an instant, that she was right. I wanted her dreams
to come true.
She was a child. She was my daughter and Eoghan’s daughter and Eamon’s
daughter and Pat’s daughter and Bertie’s daughter. She was your
daughter, your little sister. She was a child of Ireland in the time
of its rebirth.
I am crying, writing this. How can you cry for someone you’ve only
once said hello to? Katy was the daughter of our dreams, in the sense
that it was the dreams of her people that gave birth to what is
tritely called her celebrity. We have these words to box off the
lucky/unlucky ones who act out our fantasies, while we stick safely to
the grandstand. We refer to them as celebs, implying a different
species. But they are human beings, filled like the rest of us with
desire, distinguished only by willingness/ opportunity to rush in
where others fear to tread.
The old saw has it wrong: those who volunteer to act out our fantasies
in public are both fools and angels. Driven by longing beyond knowing,
their folly arises from a failure of awareness, experience, wisdom.
Driven by angelic recall, they plod on clay feet into the mire of
three-dimensional reality. They do not know, are not conscious, that
their appetites are infinitely greater than the world’s capacity to
satisfy them.
Katy French was a personification of our fantasies, of our sense of
what we were becoming, of how we might unfold ourselves. She was not
the only one, but in the immediate past was perhaps the most
spectacular light on the skyline, a meteorite of desire plummeting
through the Irish zeitgeist. You may dismiss it as frivolity but only,
with respect, if you think in cliches and fixate on the superficial.
For most of us, it is not wisdom that keeps us from danger, but lack
of opportunity, or fear, or a deadly piety posing as virtue. Katy had
found a way of being that promised her it could slake all her human
cravings. She had manoeuvred herself into a position where everything
humanly desirable seemed to be within reach, and was careering forward
on the path opening up in front of her.
She did not, other than literally, die of whatever it will say on her
death certificate. She died of desire, of being utterly human.
What can I say? The dream is over.
As for lessons, I don’t know. In the past decade, we have, most of us,
conducted searches for meaning in places previously inaccessible to
us. We acquired means and freedom beyond our wildest.
We knew that money couldn’t buy us love, but still gave it a shot. We
sensed that freedom is a complicated word, but tried to keep it
simple. Be, for tomorrow we die.
As Pope Benedict reminds us in his new encyclical, we have no idea
what we would really like. “We do not know this reality at all; even
in those moments when we think we can reach out and touch it, it
eludes us.” All we know is that it is not what we have.
God is a concept by which we measure our longings.
I’ll say it again.
God is a concept by which we measure our longings.
As Katy did not comprehend the limits of her human capacity to pursue
her angelic yearnings, neither, anymore, do the rest of us. If we did,
she might be alive. Our culture left her struggling for life, because
we have neglected to keep it alive with the knowledge of what it means
to be human.
Katy’s death was the result not just of her foolishness, but of our
collective helplessness. We do not know what to say to our children as
we kiss their brows before allowing them into a world utterly,
terribly changed, because that is what we desired. We do not
understand the meaning of freedom.
And so, dear friends, we’ll just have to think it up all over again.
Comment by Andrew Sheridan | January 25, 2008 at 12:14 pmThe dream is over. Our daughter Katy is dead. And so too, and not by
the way, are our sons Kevin Doyle and John Grey. The dream is over.
(c) 2007 The Irish Times
Cheers Shane, Simon, Rosyton…
Thats the birthday presents sorted anyway.
Can I also question, I don’t read The Phoenix, but for what were they giving Shane a hard time over? (Comment 15)
Comment by Daddy Dec | January 25, 2008 at 12:17 pmDaddy Dec - It was a profile. It wasn’t complimentary. I cry myself to sleep every night over it. In fact, I’m crying as I write this.
Comment by Shane | January 25, 2008 at 1:46 pmWhat a response Shane…Hat’s off!
Comment by Daddy Dec | January 25, 2008 at 1:53 pmPhoenix in uncomplimentary profile shocker!
Comment by Bolg | January 25, 2008 at 2:55 pmbeen paranoid i thought your blog was slagging the writings and opinions of the authoratitive writer at,watching the watchers,unanswered questions,be very afraid,whats new,on public inquiry regarding corruption and crime in ireland?white collar crime dosent seem to attract the full forces of the law as ordinary crime?why is that?is not been able to read or write properly a disability or liability?in so far as if your accused of a crime its your educational ,financial,and enviromental background,what will dictate how your treated.the two recent cases of people with mental health issues show that,as does the hype of celebrity drug taking and overdoses.anybody recall the unfortunate homless man in limerick who while sleeping in a wheelie bin was scouped up into a bin lorry and crushed to death,no aide decamp there?innocent sincerity dosent count for much when it comes to giving ones opinion,whether in the papers,radio,television,or the net.by the way john waters also heard from me over the years,i assume like the rest of those i contacted over the years my request for help was denied?slan.
Comment by paddoconnellp | January 25, 2008 at 3:03 pmSean - You ask an important question about whether it’s a debate or not, although the amount of interest on this and other blogs suggests that there’s a lot to be talked about. That’s understandable given that it’s early days for this medium. It’ll be interesting to see if we’ll still need to have it in five or ten years time.
Eoin - Keen was, at least, speaking from a position of experience, both as a reader and writer of blogs. And as for someone being sued: you’re dead right and I don’t want to be a test case. (Famous last words…)
Darragh - Excellent comment, thanks for that. By the way, it’s worth saying that while we’re infuriated by so much that we read on and off-line, the world would be much less interesting without it (and we’d have much less to complain about). Personally, I do get a kick out of reading some people who I know will make my blood boil, and I doubt I’m alone on that.
Bolg - When you know a little behind some of the stories printed in it, it’s incredible just how often it gets it utterly wrong.
Comment by Shane | January 25, 2008 at 3:11 pmI can imagine - and Phoenix consists of a lot of speculation and conjecture.
All the same, it’s a great laugh.
Comment by Bolg | January 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm“It would be great if the many decent bloggers out there were more vocal about the uglier side of the Irish blogosphere.”
Most of the time, I don’t think the bloggers are the ones being ‘ugly’, it’s generally those who comment on blogs who act the maggot.
Comment by UnaRocks | January 25, 2008 at 4:03 pmBolg - When you know a little behind some of the stories printed in it, it’s incredible just how often it gets it utterly wrong.
I did like the way they were convinced I was Richard Delevan. Even though they were told it wasn’t true they then repeated it.
Most of the time, I don’t think the bloggers are the ones being ‘ugly’, it’s generally those who comment on blogs who act the maggot.
True, and very often it’s our old pal ‘Anonymous’….
Comment by Twenty Major | January 25, 2008 at 4:42 pmeveryone knows blogging is also be a breeding ground for hate-filled rants, cruelty, cynicism, negativity, begrudgery and just plain old fashioned meanness
DW: so what? You could say the same thing about families, and it would be just as meaningless.
It would be great if the many decent bloggers out there were more vocal about the uglier side of the Irish blogosphere.
Why?
I won’t take responsibility for every fool who decides to start a blog. That’s their business, and I just get on with mine.
Comment by Bock the Robber | January 25, 2008 at 5:10 pmUna, what I’ve found quite entertaining are those who go to all the effort of commenting only to tell me I’m a big ugly so and so as if I didn’t know that already. I do own a mirror. And twenty it isn’t Anonymous I worry about it, it’s the Anonymoose. Antlers the size of man so they say.
Comment by Dan Sullivan | January 25, 2008 at 7:36 pmI had thought (and hoped) that we as a species had moved on from comparing blogs to other media about two years ago.
I guess I was wrong.
I wonder if TV execs still have this kind of discussion about radio behind closed doors.
Not better. Not worse. Neither the future nor the past. Just different.
Comment by Adam | January 25, 2008 at 7:40 pmUna - I’ve said this before to you outside of this blog, but I’m aware that I don’t get the half of it. There is the big question over why it is that women attract far more personal vitriol than male bloggers, and the answer might be fairly depressing.
Comment by Shane | January 25, 2008 at 9:52 pmShane - “and the answer might be fairly depressing.”
it is, yeah. I got a good one today: “you look like the male lead outta the Corpse Bride! I wouldnt give you a length if i had a whole warehouse full of wood.”
Hmm.
Comment by UnaRocks | January 26, 2008 at 12:57 pmIsn’t the male lead outta the Corpse Bride Johnny Depp? I’d give him one…
Comment by Kieran | January 26, 2008 at 3:00 pmShane,
I missed out on the Waters piece that started the debate (I was on the piste in Austria, a benefit that accrues from living in a free house in Killiney and driving a clapped out old car).
I’m fascinated by your notion of “authority”. What is it that makes a writer or a piece authoritative, or not, as the case may be?
Comment by Ian Poulton | January 26, 2008 at 3:27 pmUna, they’re only saying that because they don’t actually have so much as a splinter to call their own.
Comment by Dan Sullivan | January 26, 2008 at 5:09 pmWhat makes it all the weirder is that evidently the blogger has written something that annoys the commenter enough for them to post but they lack the ability to engage with the point the blogger has made and so just get personal straight off the bat.
“There is the big question over why it is that women attract far more personal vitriol than male bloggers, and the answer might be fairly depressing.”
Just look at the responses to any vaguely feminist posts on Comment is Free (which I can’t read any more because the responses just enrage and depress me too much) for an extra dose of unabashed misogyny…
Comment by Stellanova | January 28, 2008 at 2:56 pmStellanova - I’ve opened up a new discussion on this here: http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/presenttense/2008/01/28/blogs-comments-and-the-nastiness-lurking-out-there/
Comment by Shane | January 28, 2008 at 3:08 pmIan - The question of authority is, I suppose, a hard one to pin down. To an extent, it’s in the eye of the beholder (the reader, in this case) and can mean a combination of things, including trust, respect, insight, consistency, intelligence and a few other elements. I’m not sure if that answers your question …
Comment by Shane | January 28, 2008 at 4:27 pmShane,
Thanks for that.
As a cleric in a post-modern society it is increasingly hard to discern what it is that people will listen to and what it is that they will ignore. Authority has become an a la carte matter which makes it hard for a church that adheres to notions that there are reference points that are given and that these will be authoritative for everyone.
Comment by Ian | January 28, 2008 at 8:11 pm