January 18, 2006

More than meets the eye?

Bill Hobbs, Sharon Cobb, and now Roger Abramson have exited from the political blogosphere. All three have backgrounds in some type of "mainstream" journalism. All three bowed out within a seven day period.

Coincidence?

More: On a similar (but at the same time unrelated) note, does this mean that someone else may be coming back to blogging? Before it was completely down...but now it's back.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

I dunno, they all seem to have quit for different reasons. From the post you linked Roger quit becuase he burned out rather quickly. Bill sort of burned out over a long period of time and I think the blogging got to be a distraction from some other things he was doing. I think he'll be back in some form eventually.

Sharon on the other hand just couldn't take the two-way back and forth of the blogosphere. She tried to get Hitman fired and threated to sue SayUncle. She's happier in media where she talks and everyone else listens.

Posted by: Les Jones at January 19, 2006 09:24 AM

Yes, it's a coincidence. We're not secretly planning to take over the world.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 19, 2006 09:45 AM

Is it a coincidence, or natural fall-out from the blogosphere's gloves-off approach to things? I'm not centrally a political blogger, I'm more of a blogger who has political opinions. Still, I find the whole blogosphere pretty ruthless. I can only wonder if these three people, whom I consider to be very civilised and polite, happened to be worn down by the raw hate that exists in the politiblog world. Just wondering...

Posted by: Katherine Coble at January 19, 2006 10:44 AM

Katherine, you may be on the right track.

Posted by: Blake at January 19, 2006 10:47 AM

Katherine wrote, "Still, I find the whole blogosphere pretty ruthless. I can only wonder if these three people, whom I consider to be very civilised and polite, happened to be worn down by the raw hate that exists in the politiblog world."

I would think it has more to do with the time it takes and the fact that that time is an expense rather than profit.

I agree with Les concerning Sharon. Trying to get someone fired from their job crosses the line. The response to Sharon's behavior was not hate. It was outrage.

How civilized is it to try to censor someone and then try to get them fired? Sharon was shrill and aggressive but she felt it was a one-way street. It doesn't work that way.

Posted by: # 9 at January 19, 2006 12:47 PM

Katherine, I think Sharon was very comfortable with raw hate - she basically accused Bredesen of murder when someone who used to be on TennCare died. She could dish it out. She just couldn't take it.

The blogosphere is exposing some journalists (Michael Fumento is another one) who are thin-skinned and only interested in listening to their own voices.

Posted by: Les Jones at January 19, 2006 12:51 PM

he blogosphere is exposing some journalists (Michael Fumento is another one) who are thin-skinned

Yes it is. And that's a good thing. Saying "look at the flaws in this guy's argument" is one thing. Cold-decking someone and standing over their bleeding body while simultaneously decrying them as "thin-skinned" is raw and animalistic.

Posted by: Katherine Coble at January 19, 2006 02:17 PM

Katherine, I think you have the roles of Sharon and the people who disagreed with her mixed up. Sharon was over the top (not as much as some, admittedly) and deflected criticism by either taking the "you don't have my experience as a seasoned investigative journalist" route or outright threatening her critics. Arguing over flaws in people's arguments wasn't really her style.

Posted by: Les Jones at January 19, 2006 04:45 PM

Sharon Cobb is dealing with physical-health issues that none of you men understand.

But blogging is brutal, no doubt about it. It pays to be naturally well-armored and to keep a sense of humor. And to keep your own knives (information and attitude) sharpened and at the ready.

Posted by: Donna Locke at January 19, 2006 07:33 PM

And all this time, I thought blogging was fun. Apparently not.

Posted by: Jon at January 19, 2006 08:46 PM

I think it's fun. Depends, though, on one's definition of "fun". Mine tends to be more warped than some.

Posted by: Katherine Coble at January 20, 2006 09:55 AM

Donna wrote, "But blogging is brutal, no doubt about it. It pays to be naturally well-armored and to keep a sense of humor. And to keep your own knives (information and attitude) sharpened and at the ready."

Does blogging have to be brutal? I think you can disagree with someone without having to be brutal. But what happens when you disagree?

If you try to track that persons IP address and get them fired from their job, censor them, or threaten to sue them, sparks will fly.

There seems to be an empathy respect conundrum when some "former" journalists become bloggers. They seem to feel that their "street cred" from journalism transfers over to the blogger world.

It doesn't. Why should it? You earn any respect you are due in the blogging world. Everyone starts at square one.

Posted by: # 9 at January 20, 2006 10:19 AM

No conspiracy, I promise. But it is interesting. You know what? The turn of the year might have had something (at least on a subconscious level) to do with it. That's always a sort of natural time to evaluate things going on in your life. Maybe we were all sort of doing that in some way.

Posted by: Roger Abramson at January 20, 2006 11:18 AM

There seems to be an empathy respect conundrum when some "former" journalists become bloggers. They seem to feel that their "street cred" from journalism transfers over to the blogger world.

It doesn't. Why should it? You earn any respect you are due in the blogging world. Everyone starts at square one.

DING! And that attitude isn't just relegated to Sharon.

Posted by: brittney at January 20, 2006 12:55 PM

"There seems to be an empathy respect conundrum when some "former" journalists become bloggers. They seem to feel that their "street cred" from journalism transfers over to the blogger world."

There also seems to be a huge amount of reverse-snobbery in Blogistan toward people who've actually BEEN PAID for writing. The stink of filthy lucre earns them an automatic and envious shunning.

I personally don't care if you've written twenty books or just a few letters to your mother. The point in blogland is the conversation we are having at the moment. Your past informs that conversation but doesn't validate it in any way.

Posted by: Katherine Coble at January 20, 2006 01:39 PM

I'm not really sure what an "empathy respect conundrum" even is, and I certainly can't speak for Bill, Sharon et al, but:

1. I always considered it to be presumptuous to call myself a "journalist," even if, technically speaking, I was. I didn't go to any school, I was never trained, etc. there are journalists, and there are people who can write and happen to have apoint of view and/or something to say. I put myself in the latter category.

2. I made it clear--I think--that I have no issue with blogging or the blogosphere at all. It's politics generally that I'm weary of. And since what I think people would expect me to blog about on PITW would be politics...well, it just wasn't going to work anymore. That's all it is.

Posted by: Roger Abramson at January 20, 2006 02:09 PM

Katerine wrote, "There also seems to be a huge amount of reverse-snobbery in Blogistan toward people who've actually BEEN PAID for writing. The stink of filthy lucre earns them an automatic and envious shunning.

I personally don't care if you've written twenty books or just a few letters to your mother. The point in blogland is the conversation we are having at the moment. Your past informs that conversation but doesn't validate it in any way."

Did anyone "envy" Bill Hobbs or Sharon Cobb? I did not perceive that. I also thought their writing styles were very different.

I don't agree with the "reverse-snobbery" concept, at least I have not seen that in Knoxville. Did you feel that other bloggers were jealous of Sharon? I don't understand your "automatic and envious shunning" point. I have not seen that. Does that happen in Nashville?

I do agree with your point "Your past informs that conversation but doesn't validate it in any way."

Posted by: # 9 at January 20, 2006 02:17 PM

I never expected automatic "street cred" in the blogosphere because I was a degreed/experienced professional journalist - I expected to earn credibility by doing good journalism and publishing it in the blog medium.

Along the way I learned that the interactive nature of the blog medium enables (though doesn't guarantee) better journalism, especially if - as I was - the blogging journalism (or journalistically inclined blogger, if you prefer) is willing to allow his or her readers, who collectively know more than any journalist does, to impact and add to the coverage and commentary.

I'll put my blogged coverage of, say, the Tennessee tax/spending debate over the past four years, up against the MSM's coverage of same any day. My readers were, hands down, better informed and provided more data and hard facts and context (and less "he said/they said" partisan political back-and-forth) than anything the MSM dished out during the same time period.

Is that because I'm a better journalist than the reporters at the Tennessee MSM or because I worked in a better medium in a freer system? I would argue it's a little bit of the former and a lot of the latter. Yes, I dug for things that the MSM reporters of that period didn't dig for, and yes, unlike the majority of the Tennessee MSM I avoided publishing press releases from the governor's office as if they were objective, factual news. But what really improved the coverage was I encouraged others with knowledge and information that would enhance the coverage to provide it via comments and emails, and I followed up on it. The emergence of others bloggers doing similar digging also enhanced the coverage as they often found data I missed, and vice versa.

And I, by example, taught my readers how - and where - to dig for data and facts - by linking to the very sources I cited.

Also, the lone-gunman blogger is freer to publish than the reporter at a big newspaper is. I had no morning news meeting where editors told me what story I'd be covering. And there were no editors to delay publication or water down a story because it didn't fit their notion of the truth.

My "editors" were the readers who could click the hyperlinks and check the sources I cited for themselves - a powerful incentive to get things right.

Unfortunately, being a lone-gunman journablogger takes a lot of time and it does begin to wear one out, especially if one is doing it on top of a full-time job and a growing sideline of consulting and freelance work.

Hence the break.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 20, 2006 03:26 PM

Bill Hobbs said: "My readers were, hands down, better informed and provided more data and hard facts and context (and less "he said/they said" partisan political back-and-forth) than anything the MSM dished out during the same time period."

How can you expect to know how informed the "MSM"s readers are if there is no two-way communication between them. Secondly, how can you expect MSM's readers to provide data if they don't have a forum to do so.

That doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: brittney at January 20, 2006 04:44 PM

I took Bill's comment to mean that his readers provided more detail on a given story than could be found printed/spoken in the MSM. I didn't infer that he finds his readers to be more intelligent than those who read/listen to the MSM.

I'm not a big fan of institutionalised media per se, but I think it's an apples to styrofoam comparison. Any MSM outlet has to devote it's time to multiple stories and issues. A blogger and his/her audience is free to nitpick one issue to the end of time. Bloggers can know all there is to know about Ophelia Ford or Meat Loaf or whomever we write about. A media outlet that has to cover not only regional politics but also national politics, human interest and television program times can't be so well-informed.

The MSM's biggest victory to date--the whole Dan Rather smackdown--was largely a triumph of collective wonkery. That's the blogosphere's stongsuit. Typesetters have a voice in authenticating documents. Nobody used to care what a typesetter thought. The problem is that the conjunction of wonkery and real world issues is like the moon in the seventh house. It only happens periodically. Apart from those strange alignments they deal in two different spheres.

Posted by: Katherine Coble at January 20, 2006 05:52 PM

Katherine read it right. Sorry for the confusion as I didn't write it clearly.

I also meant my readers, collectively, knew more than I did about almost anything I chose to write about. That's a reality that blogging allows a journalist to take advantage of, while the traditional reporting done in a newspaper doesn't because newspapers don't encourage instant feedback as comments posted below stories, and don't mine their comments and emails for follow-ups and updates.

Having worked for four different dailies and a weekly in my career, I know they don't. Newspapers publish a story when they think it is "finished." Journalistic bloggers go with the best available information at the time, and then update it as more info becomes available, much of it provided by readers and other bloggers.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 20, 2006 08:29 PM

I think people with a journalistic turn of mind -- and that can and does include folks who have no journalism training or experience -- have the better blogs of the type I need to read at the moment. I'm not dissing other, "lighter," blogs; they have their place, and I wish I had more time to read them. I've seen some wonderful writing on several I've checked out. I wish I had time to write one. I'm like Roger, I guess: I wish I could ditch politics entirely; I'm more disgusted by the day.

One thing about journalists: they're usually quite accustomed to criticism, will even interview their critics, and they learn a certain art of detachment while they're still in journalism school, if they're wise. I did notice that about Bill Hobbs. But I've known and fought with a number of working print journalists -- reporters and editors -- who can't take any criticism of their work. Their easy dismissals of valid criticism reveal the reason for the stagnant mediocrity at so many of our newspapers.

Posted by: Donna Locke at January 20, 2006 10:55 PM