If blogosphere to be a player, civility a must
Posted by Sandy on May 13th, 2008
If the blogosphere is ever to become an important resource for news, for citizen journalists to write their opinions and/or for people to weigh in with their own views, political or otherwise, there needs to be a spirit of mutual respect and civility — at least within certain blog communities.
Otherwise, the Internet will become nothing more than a free for all where only the most rude and extreme will be heard and be able to tolerate it. When that happens, blogging will have jumped the shark and a wonderful opportunity will have been lost to the lowest common denominator.
I am writing this post about the importance of civility now because I am noticing a lack of it more and more every single day. For instance, while there are many wonderful regular readers both here and at Jack’s Newswatch, where I also post, increasing numbers of commenters are becoming impatient, insistent, dismissive and sometimes downright abusive to each other and to the bloggers themselves.
What is going on? In the 18 months I have been blogging and at least a year before that when I used to leave comments, people have always expressed strongly held opinions and were willing to debate on those opinions. Yet, that it not what I am talking about. Moreover, there have always been trolls, or what I call “shock” bloggers, who love nothing better than to post nasty messages and comments.
No, something else seems to be at work now. Are people just tired of all the goings on in Ottawa, no matter which political party is involved? Has the “gotcha” game of the federal opposition tainted everyone, whether liberal, progressive or conservative, with the same brush?
I am writing this post because I am genuinely concerned. I make a point never to write anything about another blogger, particularly anything that is critical or demeaning — even when I strongly disagree. In fact, I like and respect bloggers from all political persuasions, many of whom are on my “favourites” list. And, I try very hard not to get into one upmanship on comment threads.
Perhaps it is the anonymity that brings out the worst in some people. I don’t know. But, think about it. As bloggers, why on earth would we continue to volunteer our time, day after day, if we are going to be faced with a complete lack of civility more often than not? When we have to put our comments on moderation because we have to make sure they are not insulting, degrading or inflammatory.
So, at the end of the day (literally), if the blogosphere is to be a player in the news and opinion business, civility should be a must.
[...]
May 13th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Great post Sandy. As an occassional visitor, I can say that your writings are fair and your blog is welcoming of diverse views. I’m not conservative and I do support one publicly funded education system, so you and I hold dissimilar opinions, and I haven’t felt attacked here. If you only want to hear from people who agree with you, you’ll never get anywhere. Much more effective discourse results when people state their opinions and rationale, rather than denigrating others. Any idiot can attack, but it takes open mindedness and reason to discuss.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:08 am
The only thing I’m gonna get in people’s grill about is quoting D’Souza as if he’s some sort of “smart man”. Or getting on Kate’s case for going over the top, from time to time.
It all depends what you define as civility. Vociferously disagreeing with “The Team” can only make us a stronger community. However, dropping to ad hominem (sp?) doesn’t help us, or our readers.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Sandy, I agree that expressing one’s opinion need not descend to the lowest common denominator, resorting to insults and ad hominems.
However, isn’t the blogosphere an extension, or rather a reflection, of what goes on in society? One need only watch QP to see and hear the level political discourse has sunk to.
You yourself have pointed out many a time the smear campaigns prevalent in the MSM, where supposedly well educated journalists resort to ridicule, name calling and downright distortions to advance their own agendas by usually portraying certain politicians in a negative light.
Or what about some supposedly responsible people like Barbara Byers, V-P of the Canadian Labour Congress, whom I saw in an interview with CPAC’s Peter Van Dusen?
The reason for the interview was the case being brought to the Supreme Court re: the surplus in the EI fund.
Ms. Byers accused the government of THEFT, saying the money had been STOLEN from workers and used for purposes other than for payments to unemployed workers.
Of course, nowhere in that interview was it mentioned that those funds were used to give Canadians all those other services they expect and demand.
The way Ms. Byers expressed her POV, one would think the money was pocketed by the government.
Jack Layton accused the government of the same thing during QP, referring to the EI fund as “stolen” money.
And how many times has Mr. Layton said that the oil companies and banks “are gouging” Canadians.
Is that the kind of language one should use to advance one’s POV?
Or consider the tone and volume on talk shows, where hosts yell and scream their outrage at the “scandale du jour” - be it municipal, provincial or federal - painting all politicians with the same brush, as incompetent nincompoops whose only mission in life is to stick it to us.
Of course, that encourages irate callers to “agree 110%” with the host, so the rage level goes up.
Much of the rage is probably manufactured by hosts wishing to appear “edgy” and hoping to pull in a bigger audience, but such programs don’t help to advance public discourse.
Although one may not be a confrontational kind of person, still, one cannot help but react angrily in turn, after hearing some of the nonsense being spouted by some people.
And then there are the trolls … the “professional” instigators of discord. The less attention paid to them, the better.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:34 am
All excellent points guys. You are all correct.
I am not talking about differences of opinions, even strongly held opinions, I am talking about nastiness.
And, yes, Gabby, saying the government has stolen money from the EI fund is far beyond civility. So, that reinforces my case, that the radio hosts and the opposition and the government members in return, have racheted up the “pretend” outrage and the lack of discord.
But, I draw the line when someone says, in whatever way they want, that another person is an idiot (or similar wording) for thinking thus and so.
Am I going to change anything? Hardly. But, at least I have a place I can talk about it — here.
So, I invite readers to keep coming back even if we hold differing views. That is not what I am talking about. In fact, what I am talking about my regular readers haven’t even seen because the comments didn’t get approved.
But, those commenters know who they are.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:23 am
If we were all the same and agreed with everything nothing would ever change. Feedback is a gift, good or bad.
You own your blog. The level of rudeness and civility are yours to control. Those who get their kicks from that type of blog will go there, those who don’t…will not. Lots of choices in blog land. Dealing with the undesirables trolling on your blog comes with the territory of public internet communications I think.
I frequent blogs like yours that see its participants as intellectuals who are free to disagree.
To be fair there are Liberal blogs that I frequent too for the same reason. Calgary Grit, and Kinsella’s are snappier than most and talk TO ME not AT ME.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Ann — To give you an idea of what I am talking about. I just had two comments in “moderation” — yours and one other. The other said simply: eat shit and die.
That is not only uncivil, it is simply childish.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:52 am
You’re fighting a losing battle, Sandy. The Internet is, by its definition, a free-for-all. The benefit of that is that it allows anybody with a connection to voice their opinion. The drawback of that is that it allows anybody with a connection to voice their opinion.
It’s instructive to watch the deterioration of Usenet from a community into anarchy, as spammers and trolls blocked nearly all constructive discussion behind a wall of noise. And, as they note, well over half of all e-mail sent these days is Spam.
I think you’re being too optimistic in believing that the blogosphere as a whole is a big opportunity to change how things are done in the world. They said the same thing about e-mail. They said the same thing about television. They said the same thing about radio.
And yet, there are good television shows out there. There are good radio stations. And I still manage to communicate with my friends and family through e-mail.
The blogosphere is only going to get more chaotic, just like the rest of the Internet. That is the way of things. It’s been happening almost the moment blogging received the notice of the mainstream media. By 1995, the trolls and spammers were severely tainting the Usenet experience. In 2005, people were already saying “blogs are the new Usenet”.
So, my advice is (which, with a buck-fifty will get you a cup of coffee), take down your expectations a few notches, and just focus on what you can control. There is no way we can impose a code of conduct on the blogosphere, and the field is so open, those who take the time to think before they right will be overwhelmed by those who think that an Internet connection is an excuse to say things they’d never say to people’s faces.
The blogosphere as a whole isn’t going to change the world. But individual blogs might. Like television, people will use the medium as they see fit. Eventually, it will become so ubiquitous, people will wonder how we did without it. But nothing will actually have changed, much. The power to change the world has always rested with the individual, not the tools they used.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:55 am
very well said James!
What you’re paying Sandy is the price of the information age. The “eat shit and die” types have always been there. How do deal with it will either drive you away or make you stronger.
Good blogs will last. Others will need to do something to get attention paid to them…that includes being rude.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Thanks James — always words of wisdom. I was reading about your latest novel writing experience and am very interested in how you develop your stories. I have always wanted to write fiction and have lots of ideas but know nothing about character and plot development. Did you just do what worked for you?
On another point, you and your wife were expecting in April were you not? Do you have another daughter or a son? Amazing that you could finish the draft with all that going on.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I agree with you Sandy…100%
The childish partisanship by all sides has changed blog-reading something I used to do daily, only an occasional thing now.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I for one hope the people who are “genuinely concerned” as well as those who “want to be a player” are never in charge of enforcing what “should be a must” on the internet.
I’ll take the free for all with its warts please. The alternative has already been tried and found wanting.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Hey, Sandy. Eleanor Grace was born on April 27. I wrote the birth story here and here. As for the process of my writing, there’s no set way, but I tend to favour a pretty organic style. I come to a story with a couple of scene ideas and a character or two, and just let things roll, by answering the questions these scenes raised, and then answering the questions the answers raised.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
James — I loved reading about the whole story. Sorry I missed it. I usually check your blog regularly, but obviously missed this latest. As you know, we will be great-grandparents in September. So, I expect to be reintroduced to it all again then. That said, I suspect that our daughter — who will be a first time grandmother — will likely get there first. LOL
Re writing fiction, like all things well done. They always sound so easy.