Delicate Flowers

I was at a big old get together yesterday evening featuring some people from the blogosphere, some old media types, folks with old media origins who now do some new media work, folks with new media origins who now work for MSM outlets, and even some people who aren't journalists or bloggers at all but who are familiar with these issues. The fascinating thing is that if you had to sort the group out into an "excited about new stuff" group and a "frightened by new stuff" group, the defining characteristic of the Axis of Fear is what strikes me as a fairly bizarre aversion to be criticized. Or, at a minimum, an aversion to being criticized in strong, blunt terms rather than a kind of polite disagreement between close friends or collaborators.

The way they would put it, naturally, is that they're only opposed to unfair or vulgar criticism. And that's probably even right -- nobody minds a fair, respectful criticism too much. But, of course, if you get criticized a lot -- as anyone with a moderately trafficked blog does -- most of the criticism is going to seem somewhat unfair to you. Opening yourself up to being criticized in unfair or obscene ways is part-and-parcel of the process of opening yourself up to being criticized at all; if you're not willing to read the occassional unfair or ill-informed slam, then you're really just not willing to go through the process of reading criticisms at all.

On top of that, there seems to be this notion that if there was no internet, nobody would be making the criticisms. As if before 1998 or so everyone sat around reading their morning New York Times with nary a peep of complaint. But of course people were always pissed off -- I remember Teenage Political Dork Matt and his father bitching about the media -- it's just that now you see hear from them more often. But if people are going to be pissed off at me, frankly, I'd rather have some sense of what they're pissed off about. Maybe they have good points and I should change things up. Or maybe their points are dumb, and I should press forward and ignore them.

Comments

And of course the old media did encompass a fair amount of unfair and intemperate criticism but only on a limited range of topics deemed reasonable by the media gatekeepers.

Posted by otto | May 11, 2007 9:25 AM

Oh, fuck you, Matt.

Posted by John Emerson | May 11, 2007 9:33 AM

yeah--i bet these people had no problem publishing "strong, blunt" criticisms of Al Gore for the color of his clothing.

Look, one thing that would help the delicate flowers get used to criticism would be if we eased them in slow, don't you think?

So come on, Matt--tell us their names.

Tell us which ones were whining, and we can help them overcome their fears.

Posted by pansie | May 11, 2007 9:33 AM

The hidden secret to your success has been your embrace of unmoderated comments.

And as John Emerson put it so eloquently, fuck you, Matt.

Posted by Petey | May 11, 2007 9:35 AM

Tell us which ones were whining, and we can help them overcome their fears.

Can't do it, son; we were off the record.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 11, 2007 9:39 AM

Emerson, you witless lame-brain, that was the sorriest excuse for criticism I have ever read.

Instead of obscenity-laced criticism, you just gave us an obscenity, with no criticism of any kind. Can't you do any better than that?

In order to be criticism, it has to point up short-comings, assert a disagreement. It should at least question the target's intellect, credibility, and attractiveness to the other sex. Then, but only then, can you spice it up with the occasional obscenity or vulgar term of abuse, you pathetic, cross-eyed wanker.

And the same criticisms apply to yglesias, of course.

Posted by that'snotanargument | May 11, 2007 9:39 AM

In addition to being addictive and alienating, the blogosphere is mean-spirited. It is an entire medium devoted to morons making unfair and ill--informed complaints about coverage.

Posted by Trolly McTroll | May 11, 2007 9:40 AM

"we were off the record"

said Matthew "I heart David Broder" Yglesias.

but I understand, son.

Posted by pansie | May 11, 2007 9:41 AM

"But if people are going to be pissed off at me, frankly, I'd rather have some sense of what they're pissed off about."

I blame you for Denver's loss to San Antonio.

Posted by Petey | May 11, 2007 9:42 AM

I thought my criticism was quite cogent.

Posted by John Emerson | May 11, 2007 9:44 AM

I remember Teenage Political Dork Matt and his father bitching about the media.

Worst WB show ever.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | May 11, 2007 9:44 AM

Why is a little vulgarity something to get so worked up about? Sometimes vulgarity is funny. Sometimes it's called for.

The vulgarity complaint really means: "You guys used to be quiet. Can you be quiet again?"

Posted by Mike M. | May 11, 2007 9:45 AM

There is also the issue of some people saying things online that they would never have the guts to say to another person's face.

Criticism is fine. Incivility online is often gutless.

Posted by Rich | May 11, 2007 9:46 AM

"Off the record" is for the Tim Russerts of the world. Or are you afraid you won't be invited to any more parties?

There - that's criticism.

Posted by Minion | May 11, 2007 9:46 AM

Matt: Part of what sets you above the fray is that you're generally a principled journalist. Thus, you can at least meet your critics half way--and shrug off your knee-jerk detractors, noting that some people are just hatas. Ezra "The Good Klein" has his Fred Jones and Tokes, guys who are there to advance talking points--and defend them with ad-hominem attacks against those who refute the talking points. Like you, Ezra leaves open the commenting for a few reasons, I suspect: to allow a free exchange of ideas (natch); and to give opposing ideas lacking serious merit (and their proponents) enough rope with which to hang themselves.

I assume the thin-skinnedness of some MSM types is the result of their general lack of professional principles. They open themselves to withering attacks because the positions they advance oftentimes rely solely on the writers' professional standing, and not on their analytical and investigative abilities. I really hate to pick on Joe Klein here, but he seems to be the poster child for this sort of thing.

Posted by jimmmm | May 11, 2007 9:54 AM

In another life when I was training to be an artist, we'd trot off and do our paintings, then bring them back to the group for a critique. The critiques were practically useless because very few students were willing to offend the other students. For the most part they were afraid that they'd be met with the same fate when it came time to critique their own work. And really, who wants to be an asshole? As a result, practically no useful feedback. Hmmm ... just like the MSM talking herds.

Posted by DanF | May 11, 2007 10:07 AM

Hear, hear. Thank you, Matt. For me, the most wonderful thing about discovering the conversation taking place in the intertubes was finding out that thousands of other people were as pissed-off at the media as I was, and that there were some very smart people voicing our concerns.

Posted by porgy tirebiter | May 11, 2007 10:09 AM

What porgy said.

Posted by mudhead | May 11, 2007 10:16 AM

But if people are going to be pissed off at me, frankly, I'd rather have some sense of what they're pissed off about. Maybe they have good points and I should change things up.

Right. I think your views on the war, US policy in the Middle East, and even John Edwards have in some sense matured as a result in part of the intemperate comments on your blog.

So what I'm getting round to saying is that the people who post here regularly should be cut into a slice of that $100,000.

Posted by otto | May 11, 2007 10:18 AM

Thanks for the reporting - and the insight. One of the things that I like about the blogosphere is that, at its best (and I know that it is not always at its best, but...) it is quite similar to the best debates that happen in universities and scholarly journals. Evidence, logic, persuasion, and rebuttal count for a lot among bloggers and their commentors, and they do not have much respect for people who argue without facts, who over-generalize, or who display sloppy logic.

Of course within academia there are people with frighteningly thin skins and loose thinking (we call them "tenured faculty"), but the ideal of the blogosphere and the ideal of the university are remarkably similar.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | May 11, 2007 10:21 AM

"Off the record" is for the Tim Russerts of the world. Or are you afraid you won't be invited to any more parties?
There - that's criticism.
Posted by Minion

This reminds me of Kevin Drum's take on Jon Chait's latest carping about those eeevil blogs. Drum pointed out that political and/or issue-based advocacy is an ancient and established tradition, not necessarily any more dishonest or mercenary than a ton of other practices, so to Drum, the only really objectionable part of Chait's editorial was the vilifying, accusatory tone of it, how it made partisan blogs sound like something new, revolutionary and horrible. Um, so they're partisan; so what?

I mean, it may be literally true that one reason to respect the "off the record" convention is party invitations, just like some bloggers probably do indeed push dishonest smears of their political opponents, but it's oblivious at best to assume that's all there is to it. Information "on background" or "off the record" can still be useful. Sometimes people giving that information want to stay "off the record" for bad reasons, but some have perfectly good reasons. Assuming they're following the rules of "the record," the least we can do is the same.

Of course, if you're just throwing out a complaint for the fun of it like a bunch of other people, well, this doesn't matter, so never mind.

Posted by Cyrus | May 11, 2007 10:25 AM

i always figured it was generational - you were either brought up on flame wars or you weren't.

Posted by paperpusher | May 11, 2007 10:34 AM

The vulgarity complaint really means: "You guys used to be quiet. Can you be quiet again?"

I don't think so. I think it means: "We used to be able to keep you quiet. Isn't there some way to silence you people anymore?"

Oh, and yes— fuck you, Matt.

Posted by s9 | May 11, 2007 10:35 AM

What I find amusing about all this is that in past we were told that journalists loved the hate mail they got. It meant they were striking a chord. There were tales of posting the best stuff on their bulletin boards.

So the issue really isn't that they hate the hate mail (and I don't believe Lil Debbie when she says that in the old days hate mail didn't arrive by USnail). It's that they don't like other people reading cogent criticism. Over at Swampland, Joe Klein's been taken apart by commenters on the issue the Dean because Joe simply doesn't have a cogent argument. If the only people who see those commenters are the assistants opening the editorial letters, and then maybe one gets printed, well that's no big deal. But to have 50 or 60 people take you apart intellectually, well, that's gotta hurt.

Note that he deserves praise here for this--opening himself up this way is a good thing. But it's still gotta hurt. Imagine what would happen to David Brooks in such a format.....

Posted by jayackroyd | May 11, 2007 10:36 AM

Opening yourself up to being criticized in unfair or obscene ways is part-and-parcel of the process of opening yourself up to being criticized at all; if you're not willing to read the occassional unfair or ill-informed slam, then you're really just not willing to go through the process of reading criticisms at all.

You pretentious fool. That is the most sophomoric semicolon I've seen today.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 11, 2007 10:42 AM

The debates made possible by un- or lightly- moderated comments are the best thing to happen to this country in many decades. Like individuals who suffer clinical depression, the society had lost the ability to imagine that things could be better -- and that happened because we had lost the social space to say out loud what we were thinking, and to interact in ways that eventually produce smarter conversations and more constructive relations. Rediscovering how many really smart people there are in this world, and being part of the process of re-making social norms, generates hope when it is most desperately needed.

Back when some of us thought a revolution could be willed into being, we had certain standards for criticism: that it be direct, timely, proportionate, specific, constructive and accompanied by self-critical evaluation. Most often, those efforts eventually skewed into destructive, incestuous messes, but maybe this time those guidelines can help produce something better.

That said, fuck those delicate flowers. They've held the stage far too long. Trust the people.

Posted by Angela Motorman | May 11, 2007 10:46 AM

As someone who's looked at anti-war/peace/reconciliation issues, it does depress me to read so many posts that are so angry, and written mostly to hurt, not persuade, the other side. Criticism is important for making things better in the world, but many comments lashing out in anger makes things worse.

You know how it takes only an hour to destroy something with a hammer and so much longer to re-build. Whether the thing destroyed is a country (Iraq) or relationships (journalists and readers), I think is somewhat the same. Maybe people don't like to think of mean words as being a hammer, but they can be (ask psychologists and ambassadors).

Also, my 8-year old daughter, home from school today, looked over my shoulder and said "There's a bad word on that site". I don't shelter my kids form all the bad words in life, but it seems to me that if people wrote posts as if their mom, or 8-year old daugher, or kindergarden teacher were reading it, things might be better all around.

--Beth in VA, channeling Ms. Manners

Posted by Beth in VA | May 11, 2007 10:46 AM

I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms people writing in with thier complaints and the show breaking away all the time to read the complaints aloud. It really messes up the flow of the show .

Bragadier Arthur Gorbenstock , Mrs.

(Ahhh, the Pythons really did write a tiny sketch for nearly Every moment in life I think ...)

I'm not mad at you Matt, but I won't tell you what I'm most not mad about .

Posted by A.Scott | May 11, 2007 10:47 AM

They hat vulgar things being said about them? So, of course, every time Limbaugh has sicked his dogs on journalists over the years, they've been polite about it.

Maybe it's the fact that our criticisms aren't dumb and can't be dismissed that bothers them.

Posted by memekiller | May 11, 2007 10:49 AM

jayackroyd's comment nails it, I think.

Posted by boonie | May 11, 2007 10:52 AM

Please pass along to the axis of fear folks, that they will observe an inverse relationship between the vitriol of criticism directed at an individual, and that individual's willingness to engage his or her critics.

Posted by Brautigan | May 11, 2007 10:55 AM

Actually, 'good manners' in political commentary went away a long time ago with the long-term right-wing attack on the media. I think the problem the commentariat is having is simply that the effective attack now is coming from the left-- having already conceded to the right, they're feeling kinda cornered.

Posted by MattF | May 11, 2007 10:57 AM

This was hilarious:

Oh, fuck you, Matt.

Posted by John Emerson | May 11, 2007 9:33 AM

Posted by duus | May 11, 2007 10:58 AM

...the defining characteristic of the Axis of Fear is what strikes me as a fairly bizarre aversion to be criticized. Or, at a minimum, an aversion to being criticized in strong, blunt terms rather than a kind of polite disagreement between close friends or collaborators.

I disagree, and I wasn't even at the meeting so how would I know?

But I do know that in the 70's journalists (and others) were mortified *not* to be on Nixon's Enemies List. And I strongly suspect that there are many journalists today who would love to find out whether they made Bush's enemies list.

My theory, again not having been there - most journalists are earnest libs who grew up with the notion that they are the good guys, and are mortified to find that some even more earnest libs think they are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

I blame you for Denver's loss to San Antonio.

Hmm - I have been blaming Matt for the multiple hamstring pulls on the Yankees, but maybe he is the reason V Carter's shot has gone AWOL.

Posted by Tom Maguire | May 11, 2007 11:28 AM

Gary, that was an excellent semicolon, shying away from the lazy dashes -- which have their place, but not there. And really, do you want to gripe about punctuation with a guy who can't spell? BTW, what do frosh and senior semicolons look like?

Posted by nolaboyd | May 11, 2007 11:34 AM

Speaking of the Axis of Fear: (at The Atlantic)

The debates made possible by un- or lightly- moderated comments are the best thing to happen to this country in many decades

So why do you and Ross allow comments, and Andrew Sullivan and James Fallows get to be dainty flowers with no comments allowed? Is there some line of Privilege running through the Atlantic Online that isn't otherwise visible to us plebians?

And, on Sullivan's blog, why does his page format have no links to the other blogs at The Atlantic, but all the rest of you have a common format?

Is Sullivan the Pope? Do you and Ross have to kiss his ring daily? Is Fallows above the fray?

People want to know these things. And fuck Sullivan for not allowing comments.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | May 11, 2007 12:54 PM

I never really understood you Matt, until I read Mr. Emersons comment. Thank you Mr. Emerson.

Now I understand there is only a one letter disrepancy between Matt (yglesias) and Mitt (Romney)!

Matt, you've been caught red-mitted!

Posted by Mooser | May 11, 2007 1:09 PM

Andrew Sullivan could never stand comments. His Doctor forbids them. Andy's immunity is so low, there's no telling what kind of secondary infection a critical comment could cause him.
And besides, how would you know if the commentor was "furry" or not?

Posted by Mooser | May 11, 2007 1:12 PM

being able to make a valid point and being arguably obscene about it are not mutually exclusive concepts. especially if what is being criticized is seen as a form of obscenity in the first place.

people who have such disdain for the internet and its various content...its pretty amazing that they can even get jobs at all outside of the service industry. how can someone get hired as a writer or journalist these days who refuses to be informed about the internet due to its 'bad language'? you can't even get a basic administrative assistant job with such an attitude!

the whole purpose of online debate to me is that you can argue and disagree, in whatever terms you want, without having to be right there with the person, without having to go through the social ritual of obtaining phone numbers from mutual contacts, etc. the whole point is to make your point through whatever means you have at hand. sometimes that is vulgarity and 'bad language', sometimes its not. what i see a lot of, and just can't help but shake my head at and wonder how these people manage to tie their shoes in the morning, is supposedly revered journalists who blatantly ignore specific, well-argued points simply due to the presence of 'bad language' or insults of some kind. just refuse to see what's in front of them because their delicate little eyes can't see past the word 'fuck'.

Posted by benj | May 11, 2007 1:27 PM

Lest I be accused of favoritism, I might mention that even such a luminary as ">http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott"> James Wolcott praises Emerson's insights in today's entry.

And his comment here is of his best, I'm sure!

Posted by Mooser | May 11, 2007 1:51 PM

Of course within academia there are people with frighteningly thin skins and loose thinking (we call them "Ann Althouse")

Fixed it for you.

Posted by Gregory | May 11, 2007 1:59 PM

Just a nit-picking minute.
"Off the record" is a term which should be used with care and precision.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/world/16275282.htm

McClatchy Washington Bureau's policy on using anonymous sources
[...]
TERMINOLOGY

It is imperative that we understand the rules and the terminology that we use to enter into attribution agreements with sources.

To that end, here are terms of attribution:

On the record: The information can be used freely and the source identified fully.

Backgrounder/not for attribution: Both terms are used interchangeably. It means the source cannot be identified by name.

Deep background: The source cannot be identified at all but the information can be reported on the reporter’s own authority.

Guidance: The source cannot be identified and the information can be used only to inform further reporting.

Off the record: The information is not usable. Be aware of what the terms mean so that the source is not preventing you from further reporting. Make sure the source is not using “off the record” to mean “background” or “not for attribution.”

- - McClatchy Newspapers

Posted by sysprog | May 11, 2007 2:02 PM

Maybe it's the fact that our criticisms aren't dumb and can't be dismissed that bothers them. Posted by memekiller

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner!!! When it was the mouthbreathing troglodytes with their thinly veiled racism and misogyny doing the critism they had no problem ignoring it. Unfortunately that let the poison spread and inspired at least some of the founding of the left blogosphere to counter Rush et al. Now we are pointing out that they have no clothes and they can't counter effectively. Joe Klein's lame attempts at Time demonstrate this the best.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | May 11, 2007 3:04 PM

No, my best comment is:

I become a transparent eyeball-I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me-I am part or particle of God.

.

But thanks.

Posted by John Emerson | May 11, 2007 3:05 PM

It's hard to improve on

Oh, fuck you, Matt.

Posted by John Emerson

Posted by olo | May 11, 2007 4:33 PM

My epiphany happened after the night Jimi Hendrix played at, um, I think it was either the Washington Hilton ballroom or the Sheraton Gormanghast. The next day in school we were sitting around in the commons and one of my fellow slackers had a copy of The Evening Star and he read out the review of Hendrix's performance, which was basically: It is a perversion for this black performer to be worshipped by a white audience. We knew it was a right-wing paper, but we were all aghast.

Posted by Avedon | May 11, 2007 7:40 PM

When it was the mouthbreathing troglodytes with their thinly veiled racism and misogyny doing the critism they had no problem ignoring it.

Not quite. They had no problem dismissing it as personal criticism, but they internalized it all the same.

Posted by Avedon | May 11, 2007 7:42 PM

Here's a guess for the delicate flower crowd:

Garance Franke Ruta

You know I'm right.

Posted by Mike | May 11, 2007 9:01 PM