contentious.com

The May/June 2004 issue of Mother Jones included an article by George Packer called The Revolution Will Not Be Blogged which kicked up a bit of fuss about political weblogs.

Packer realizes that weblogs are becoming one of the defining characteristics of public discourse concerning the 2004 US presidential election. But when you look at the content of political blogs, he doesn’t see this development as particularly revolutionary, and I agree with him on this point. The type of publishing currently conducted through weblogs strongly resembles 18th-century political pamhleteering. The writing style is different, the immediacy and reach of blogs is far greater, but the motivation and results are quite similar.

Still, does that mean blogs are enhancing public discourse? Packer seems to think not – and here I must respectfully disagree…

Packer writes:

“Blogs … are atomized, fragmentary, and of the instant. They lack the continuity, reach, and depth to turn an election into a story. When one of the best of the bloggers, Joshua Micah Marshall of talkingpointsmemo.com, brought his laptop to New Hampshire and tried to cover the race in the more traditional manner, the results were less than satisfying; his posts failed to convey the atmosphere of those remarkable days between Iowa and the first primary. Marshall couldn’t turn his gift for parsing the news of the moment to the more patient task of turning reportage into scenes and characters so that the candidates and the voters take life online. He didn’t function as a reporter; there was, as there often is with blogs, too much description of where he was sitting, what he was thinking, who’d just walked into the room, as if the enclosed space in which bloggers carry out their work had followed Marshall to New Hampshire and kept him encased in its bubble. He might as well have been writing from his apartment in Washington. But the failure wasn’t personal; this particular branch of the Fourth Estate just doesn’t lend itself to sustained narrative and analysis. Blogs remain private, written in the language and tone of knowingness, insider shorthand, instant mastery. Read them enough and any subject will go dead.”

I can understand Packer’s disappointment, but I tend to think his disappointment stemmed more from his own pre-existing standards and expectations rather than Josh Micah Marshall’s efforts.

While blogs draw upon established traditions of writing, journalism, and commentary, they are under no obligation to obey the constraints or meet the standards of their predecessors. In other words, if you read a blog with newspaper or magazine expectations, you’ll probably be disappointed. Similarly, the Atlantic Monthly or Mother Jones will never satisfy someone with Shakespearean inclinations, and Shakespeare will probably offend the sensibilities of Icelandic saga fans.

In order to appreciate and benefit from weblogs, you must accept blogs for what they are – all of their unique strengths and flaws included.

First off, blogs are generally informal. Most of the time than means they sound conversational – and occasionally rambling or terse. Blogs usually don’t offer the formal, polished tone that most of us have come to associate with “official, professional” journalism or commentary. To me, that’s a refreshing change. I personally believe too often a polished tone is mistaken or substituted for genuine substance and insight.

Contrary to Packer’s view, I think that blogs can indeed provide weighty commentary and analysis – just not in traditional formats. For instance, you may need to read several entries in a particular weblog to get the same amount of analysis that a single magazine article or newspaper column might deliver. This may sound inefficient, and it can be. However, the more fragmented weblog approach to analysis generally offers richer context and more personal, human-scale detail than a traditional article or column. Personally, I treasure this new media manifestation of the human experience. Too often, I find traditional commentary too experientially distant to be engaging or credible.

Also, blogs tend to be more interconnected than mainstream traditional media. By following hyperlinks and using “conversation-tracking” tools such as Blogdex, it’s possible to follow ongoing conversations that occur among weblogs. This is one of the great strengths of weblogs – they make it fairly easy to get a sense of where and how various perspectives and opinions intersect and diverge. This, I think, is a very useful analytical tool for the reader. It’s not conventional analysis per se, but it helps readers formulate their own analysis by integrating a wide range of related discussions.

…If these inherent strengths of weblogs appeal to your tastes and sensibilities, then you probably already read a fair number of weblogs and find them at least as rewarding as traditional media. If you’re more inclined toward the style of Harpers, The New York Times, or The Economist, you probably will find weblogs (especially political ones) unvarnished, unvetted, chaotic, and unrewarding.

Ultimately, media preferences are matters of subjective taste. Weblogs do not represent the death or degradation of narrative. They are not pseudo-analysis simply because they tend to be fragmented and informal. They just have a different style, that’s all.

So the next time you see a long-established writer, journalist, or commentator from the traditional media bemoaning how weblogs are ruining media, remember that communication and publishing are not one-size-fits-all. There’s plenty of room for new and different approaches – including weblogs.