Blogs began as diaries, intensely personal, often sentimental: they referred to events in the diarists' lives and were not open to dissent. Now blogs are often political or social commentary, and it behooves the writer to back up his or her commentary. It also behooves those commentators to do the same, rather than just vent.
So How About a Blogger Code of Behavior?
I propose the following and I encourage those who wish to comment to add to the list, with constructive advice for a more compassionate, reasoned, less hateful, and more rational dialogue:
- Do your research. Back it up.
- Be prepared for ugly responses but do not succumb to the same name calling.
- When commenting, use your own name so that others can know who you are and what you stand for.
- Dissent at will but stay on target.
- Check your grammar, word usage, spelling, and logic. Do not get so angry that you type quickly and send quickly and wind up looking like an idiot.
- Be considerate.
- If you only have an opinion, keep it to yourself because you are the only one worthy of hearing such an opinion.
- If you have an actual point of view on a matter that actually matters, make it as you would in front of your mother or, say, the P.T.A.
- Take copious credit for the quality of your cogency.
Article comments
1 - Glen Boyd
Interesting article. I think the biggest potential problem of so-called "blogging" though is the way that what was once called "writing" is for the most part reduced to something now called "content" on the internet. Doesn't really matter how relevant it is to anything, whether it sheds any new light or perspective on a given subject, or even if it is particualarly well-written, just as long as it is "out there" drawing attention, advertising, and traffic.
I can deal with all the idiots who post comments simply because they enjoy seeing themselves online (even under a fake pseudonym). What I find more troubling is how "quality" is being sacrificed upon the altar of that which draws the most gawkers to the scene of the accident.
-Glen
2 - Vyrdolak
I enjoyed your piece, and to a great extent, I agree with you. I was struck by this irony, however. When you write:
Of course, there those reading this who are already girding their loins to call me an elitist or a pompous ass or something even more defamatory. There are those who will write to point out that we live in America, the greatest, most free country in the world, and therefore it is everyone’s right to say whatever he or she wishes, however vituperative, however wrongheaded, however downright nasty.
...doesn't the very fact that so many people write dissenting, if not flaming, comments to blogs prove that people aren't reading only the material they agree with? I also think that people definitely change their opinions and attitudes after age 20, in fact, throughout their lives. It may be that the people we disagree with don't change as much as we'd like them to, of course!
3 - Lisa Solod Warren
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Glenn Boyd. Quality is sacrificed. The idea of writing well is being subverted. Gawkers and their initial reactions abound. Content, alas, is all....
As for your comment, Vyrdolak, good point. Although I happen to believe that people read blogs that they don't agree with just to comment flamingly, too much of the time.
I wish I could agree that people do change their opinions and attitudes after age 20, too, and, granted, some do, although not most. Most seem to stick to what they were taught to believe, or were brought up to think--and too many don't question those beliefs or opinions when grown and on their own.
Of course, there is always the possibility that I am wrong:)
4 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
*Gawker strides on in*
Sure, one half of me agrees that the internet can be full of unstructured "content" that reads like a ten year old wrote it...But, guess what?! These are the people who embraced the technology. Most of the time I read on this very website that the internet is the total demise of mankind. That digital music could never replace the physical media. That the news isn't necessarily accurate because we can't verify the source. Yet,what's funny is that the majority of the people who complain about quality of blogs are the same people who get offended by technology & don't find a way to use it to their advantage!
Of course, this author tries to hide behind some sort of reminiscence of a better time. That the few voices that were heard via two or three channels equate to quality because they were edited & reviewed to please the consumer that purchased said paper. AND that those views were hardly contended because the editors controlled what response letters were published. You still see it nowadays in those finger blackening waste of natural resources. Most of it is a political rant and to one side. Finally, when they get around to any kind of entertainment news, that section is loaded with ads. The few articles there are about as relevant as last month's blog. We all know that we could easily question the validity of their sources as well because even the well known journalists rush stories to meet quota & drum up ratings!
So, I don't see how those Flintstones days were anymore challenging to my opinion than these digital days.
But, of course, I cannot type as well as most other people to get my point across without offending anyone who isn't used to getting "real-time" feedback.
5 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
*I'm sorry...Was that off the point & out of context??*
6 - Mark Saleski
cool article! i read something recently about the extended period of transition we're in where new and "old" media are co-existing...and we don't really know what things will look like when it's all over.
that much is true, i think.
however, i do think that the conversations and "discourse" that go on in commentary on internet forums (bc included) can be kind of sad. it usually involves the same handful of people flinging the same tired labels and cliches at each other over and over and over and over.....bleah!
7 - Diana Hartman
Brian says: Of course, this author tries to hide behind some sort of reminiscence of a better time. That the few voices that were heard via two or three channels equate to quality because they were edited & reviewed to please the consumer that purchased said paper.
I didn't interpret the article this way. Your comment sounds like you think editing and reviewing is a bad thing. All the tripe of the Internet would at least be quality tripe, as it were, if it first had to pass through the hands of someone willing to edit or decline the content.
In the days of old, grotesque syntax was rejected. These days, it's regarded by some as an art form.
Perhaps we do subscribe to information that mirrors our beliefs the majority of the time. Perhaps we do the same with the quality of content we're willing (rather, able) to read. This would certainly explain the rampant literary squalor now available.
8 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Diana,
I don't have a problem with the editing process when it is used to fix the grammar of an article. However, I do have a problem with editing when it is used to censor & decline the content.
The internet may have its fair share of "literary squalor" but at least you actually get to read what people think. The formal outlets are still available but you have a lot more to choose from.
9 - Karen
I agree with much of the content of this piece ... but i also suspect that what you are talking about is to a degree the teething process of our online interactions. At some point, the flamers who simply dissent for the sake of it, will get bored and go away. And those who actually have opinions and points of view to share, who are interested in fairly informed discourse and debate ... hopefully will remain, seeing the potential of the net to support change in the world.
10 - Lisa Solod Warren
I hope you are right, Karen