Matthew Yglesias (July 11, 2008) - By Request: Does This Blog Suck? Do All Blogs Suck? (Miscellaneous)

No, it's a pretty good smackdown of you in particular.

Posted by James | July 11, 2008 9:26 AM

I'm astonished that the combined force of meta-ness, phony self-effacement and irony in that post didn't cause the server to explode.

Posted by James Gary | July 11, 2008 9:29 AM

Damn, I think you can mount a stouter defense than that. Appell seems to be working from a premise that people are reading vapid bloggers instead of reading tomes by badass local savants drenched in knowledge. But of course people read bloggers and often learn a little something about a topic they otherwise would just wonder about, because who has time to immerse themselves in every question they're even mildly interested. And if they do want more, bloggers often provide little things called "links", like Matt does to the Brookings piece in the very post that Appell cites. Is Appell claiming the Brookings dude is just another vapid blogger? Anyway, his whole bitchy post is built on a false alternative.

Posted by rd | July 11, 2008 9:31 AM

Actually, James, I thought it was more of a smackdown of us, the readers of Matt's blog.

We're idiots, babe, it's a wonder we can even feed ourselves

Posted by peep | July 11, 2008 9:32 AM

I'd say it's much more a good smackdown of the sort of glibertarian thinking that infests much of the supposed left of the blogosphere.

What happened was that Yglesias heard about a problem, thought "markets!" and wrote a post about how Markets will totally solve everything, or at least be obviously better than any other solution.

For the most part, Yglesias is better than that, which is why I like his blog a lot. But it's relatively typical in left blogistan that on issues where the author is relatively ignorant, he or she will revert to policy-making by imagining the Economist editorial on the subject.

The problem isn't the genre, and it isn't Yglesias, it's the ideology of "pro-market liberalism" that's at issue.

Posted by DivGuy | July 11, 2008 9:33 AM

The big problem is, Appell's completely full of shit on his central point: The Southwest's water problem is an enormous one--but is not, in itself, complex. Agriculture sucks up an unsustainable lion's share of the water in question, and it will have to stop. What's complex is the politics and economics of stopping it.

Appell makes no substantive critique of your posting on water, which you did at a reader's request. He just rants ad hominem against you (although he forgot to add that you're a trust fund scumbag--or so I've heard). Typical blogger asshole. His posting did not change my life one bit, so screw him and the horse he rode in on.

Seriously--he clearly misconceives the entire notion of what blogging is and what service it provides. He should go to grad school, stake out his square meter of useless knowledge and become the go-to guy on it. The rest of us can go on trying pragmatically to be come better-informed and more useful citizen-nonexperts.

Posted by elle loco | July 11, 2008 9:39 AM

You sell yourself short, Matt. What you do provide, better than almost anyone else, is quick analysis of policy matters and the latest events. No, reading your blog won't give me a complete education on any particular issue, but it does help me see things from a different perspective.

The vast majority of blogs are pretty worthless, even the ones with high readership. But there are a few, like you, like Sullivan, like Reynolds, like Ezra Klein, and the whole staff at TNR, who think outside the box often enough that it makes thousands of readers think. SOme will read your blog post and look for more in depth information on what you are discussing.

Posted by Adam Herman | July 11, 2008 9:43 AM

Someone make a note of this post.

Posted by Freddie | July 11, 2008 9:47 AM

Quite frankly, I don't even understand the smackdown at all. What, exactly, is wrong with that post? Matthew explains his credibility ("I'm far from an expert here"), and links us to somebody with more credibility, while cautioning us that he is predisposed to be in favor of that category of solution. How have I been misled or misinformed? The internet isn't limited, this blog post doesn't crowd out any other blog post or article or dissertation on water rights, so who, exactly, has been harmed?

Posted by OhioBoy | July 11, 2008 9:51 AM

I'm with rd. I guess blogs suck if what you want is in-depth analysis of current events for the purpose of forming opinions and shaping your personal world view.

For people that are bored at work sometimes and like to read short snippets of news coupled with opinions and analysis, blogs are just fine, thanks.

Posted by Jeff | July 11, 2008 9:51 AM

Freddie,

"Someone make a note of this post."

In other words, give the blogosphere it's goddamn peanut?

Posted by keatssycamore | July 11, 2008 9:52 AM

I enjoyed both the smackdown and the response.

As an academic, I can say with great confidence that *nobody*, other than a minority of academics, writes with any intelligence or insight on the topics I know best. In the MSM, or in the Blogosophere, or in popular nonfiction, you mostly get shallow insight and deep ideological loyalties endlessly reiterated.

Nearly always, when I read an article in the newspaper on a topic I know intimately, the material is so simplified and shallow as to be almost worthless.

Almost is key. Somehow, information about precise subtopics needs to filter out of academia, think tanks, government agencies, or whatever, and be processed and synthesized intelligently by generalists. That's hard to do and most people who make a living at it do it poorly. But that doesn't make it any less important.

Yglesias is interesting, when he's interesting, because he brings a little more philosophical sophistication to the table. And it's not like he's competing against "experts" - he's competing against the MSM. Yglesias at his worst is better than most "official" pundits.

For the best of the liberal blogosophere, of course, see Brad Delong and Dean Baker: experts replacing pundits. Let's see more of that.

Posted by Harvey Lobster | July 11, 2008 9:56 AM

Blogs are a better source of information than TV.

Posted by Ed | July 11, 2008 9:57 AM

And if they do want more, bloggers often provide little things called "links"

Posted by rd | July 11, 2008 9:31 AM

This is exactly it. As great a guy as MY is, I'm here for links to stuff I wouldn't normally read or don't really have time to look for. It's the same reason I read stuff from Frank Rich to Uni-Watch. (also links from commenters can lead to ever more worthwhile journeys.) And Mr. Appell makes no reference to the value of access to information that blogs can provide.

Posted by Andrew Fly | July 11, 2008 9:57 AM

Expertise is also relative. In a broad sense I could pose as a "Middle East expert," but my knowledge of, say, Iranian politics, while better than the average American intellectual and much more so than that of the average American, is far below that of an Ali Ansari. A key part of the equation is knowing where to look for solid information, knowing when you need to go look for it, and being able to pass on insights there gleaned.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | July 11, 2008 9:58 AM

What peep said.

Shorter Matthew: people pay me to write this crap - what's your excuse for wasting your time reading it?

Posted by Al | July 11, 2008 9:59 AM

The point of the blogosphere isn't to gather facts (it's not like I'm going to cite Matt's posts in a research paper), though good blog posts can and should direct you to actual facts. The point is to learn more about where the debates are on key issues and how the different sides are thinking.

If Matt's not an expert on water, he's in pretty good company given that 99.9% of the American public and probably an overwhelming number of key decision-makers are not experts on water. Thus, it sort of matters what non-experts think on the topic, because we don't live in a technocracy where water experts make all the decisions about water, foreign policy experts make all the decisions about foreign policy, etc. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion about water, and Appell is free to take or leave the ones he chooses.

One valid point I think he raises is that blogs like Matt's seriously sacrifice quality for quantity. I can tell on some days that Matt is forcing it just to get in more posts per day. It's fine for Atrios to do one-sentence posts because that's sort of what his blog is for, but it doesn't fit with Matt's boy-genius routine. When I read one of Matt's "real" articles, I'm struck by how well-written and well-thought-out they are, and I can't believe it's the same guy who writes some of these posts. Sorry, Matt, that's just how I feel.

On the other hand, the reason I always click on Matt is BECAUSE I can be reasonably sure he's posted something new in the last hour, so maybe quantity isn't such a bad thing.

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 10:00 AM

personal request for a post:

a more spirited and less ironic-self-loathing defense of good political blogs.

My response: it's like listening to a clever and knowledgable friend. Not as great as a trained expert, but not without value.

Posted by alex | July 11, 2008 10:02 AM

"To gain any worthwhile information about any topic whatsoever, you need to be reading the work of someone with real expertise."

The problem is, this statement is false. Reading the work of someone with real expertise is a waste of time for the vast majority of people. It tends to be incomprehensible. Generally an intermediary is necessary. Someone with a strong, but non-expert background who can evaluate the work of experts, and accurately relay the implications of said work to laymen. This, however, promotes the value of interpretation, so that we get fourth hand explanations of what experts have examined. Then, the interpreters start interpreting eachother, and leave the experts out all together.

That's not to say that this blog is worthless. I enjoy it. That in itself makes it worthwhile, but it has more value. As a source of information, it has virtually no value, but as a source of questions, it is certainly worthwhile. Many things I've read here have spurred me to go to useful sources of information.

Posted by Njorl | July 11, 2008 10:02 AM

personal request for a post:

a more spirited and less ironic-self-loathing defense of good political blogs.

My response: it's like listening to a clever and knowledgable friend. Not as great as a trained expert, but not without value.

Posted by alex | July 11, 2008 10:03 AM

Unless people actually start deluding themselves into believing that MattY has some special insight about foreign policy or the Ezra, the 20-something recent liberal arts from UCLA is a "health care expert," then I don't see what the problem is. I don't think anyone goes to Ezra or MattY for policy advice outside of other pundits and talking heads shows.

As it is, we know what we're getting: the blogosphere is enjoyable to read. Sometimes they point us towards something we haven't read before that we might find interesting. They're "popularizers" for the specific policy topics they're interested in. They're like the guy who writes the gadget column for a magazine: the guy isn't an electrical engineer or computer scientist, doesn't really know much about the technology, but he likes gadgets, likes using them, and says interesting things about his experience with them and the feature tradeoffs.

I particularly take issue with this complaint from Appell: Amateur bloggers just seem to spread useless gossip.

First of all, it's not useless, and second of all, what's the problem with spreading gossip? Where else am I supposed to hear it from? Blogs are great for informing us of gossip. He says that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by Tyro | July 11, 2008 10:06 AM

In 2004 I returned to the US after several years abroad. It was a depressing time. Whereas people everywhere else in the world understood that America had lost its way, Americans, at least as viewed through the traditional media, seemed to be the worst sort of "sheeple".

But then I found Atrios, then Kos, and eventually you. These blogs are the new town halls, literally, and without them it would be possible to think I was the only one out here who hadn't gone crazy.

This blog has value. It, and blogs like it, are the modern equivalent of "Common Sense".

Posted by sfgary | July 11, 2008 10:08 AM

Truly amazing - no remarks from Petey! Maybe the little rubber room cut off his internet privileges...

Posted by morzer | July 11, 2008 10:08 AM

I read blogs not because I expect brilliant political analysis and meaningful commentary (though often I get both); I read blogs because blogs are fun to read, and so is good writing.

Matt, you’ve written in the past that public intellectuals don’t really have much influence over events. Not counting a few exceptions, I agree. The same is true of bloggers, but so what? Professional bloggers (and other writers) earn every cent they get, not because they alter the course of history or change minds but because they bring pleasure to their readers.

Posted by C | July 11, 2008 10:11 AM

rd and peep's comments (I know, Appell, not their real names) make sense, and they bear paraphrasing or expanding upon:

Appell assumes the worst about blog readership and misunderstands the uses and implications of the medium. I read your casual musings on, say, water policy, as for they are: casual musings. But having read you for some time, and being possessed of even the barest critical facilities, when I see your postings on 1) foreign policy; 2) mass transit; and 3) basketball, I take what you say more seriously. Why? Because you've demonstrated a level of passion and expertise in these areas that is WORTH taking seriously. If Appell can't distinguish between a post on Hancock and a post on Iran (or in Sullivan's case, a post on an adorable pug with a post on the HIV travel ban), that's his problem, not ours.

It's the same mistake that old farts make about the Daily Show/Colbert. "That's the only news kids these days are getting!" they mourn. But that's just stupid: the jokes on those shows would make no sense--and certainly wouldn't be funny--for a viewer without an existing base of current political knowledge. Good political blogs--yours, Ackerman's, Ta-Nahesi's, to name a few--are only effective because people DO NOT depend on them for their main diet of news. They are for the folks already reading the long format articles, who want to interact with other people commenting on those same articles or drawing their attention to other pieces and other concerns.

Posted by north_aufzoo | July 11, 2008 10:11 AM

Shorter Matthew: people pay me to write this crap - what's your excuse for wasting your time reading it?

This does seem to be Matt's attitude towards editing and spelling. If the Atlantic isn't willing to fire Matt for the mistakes, and we're not going to stop reading the blog because of the sloppiness, what's the point of complaining? We're reading it, aren't we?

Posted by Tyro | July 11, 2008 10:12 AM

In 2004 I returned to the US after several years abroad. It was a depressing time. Whereas people everywhere else in the world understood that America had lost its way, Americans, at least as viewed through the traditional media, seemed to be the worst sort of "sheeple".

But then I found Atrios, then Kos, and eventually you. These blogs are the new town halls, literally, and without them it would be possible to think I was the only one out here who hadn't gone crazy.

This blog has value. It, and blogs like it, are the modern equivalent of "Common Sense".

Posted by sfgary | July 11, 2008 10:12 AM

rd and peep's comments (I know, Appell, not their real names) make sense, and they bear paraphrasing or expanding upon:

Appell assumes the worst about blog readership and misunderstands the uses and implications of the medium. I read your casual musings on, say, water policy, as for they are: casual musings. But having read you for some time, and being possessed of even the barest critical facilities, when I see your postings on 1) foreign policy; 2) mass transit; and 3) basketball, I take what you say more seriously. Why? Because you've demonstrated a level of passion and expertise in these areas that is WORTH taking seriously. If Appell can't distinguish between a post on Hancock and a post on Iran (or in Sullivan's case, a post on an adorable pug with a post on the HIV travel ban), that's his problem, not ours.

It's the same mistake that old farts make about the Daily Show/Colbert. "That's the only news kids these days are getting!" they mourn. But that's just stupid: the jokes on those shows would make no sense--and certainly wouldn't be funny--for a viewer without an existing base of current political knowledge. Good political blogs--yours, Ackerman's, Ta-Nahesi's, to name a few--are only effective because people DO NOT depend on them for their main diet of news. They are for the folks already reading the long format articles, who want to interact with other people commenting on those same articles or drawing their attention to other pieces and other concerns.

Posted by north_aufzoo | July 11, 2008 10:13 AM

Per DivGuy: "For the most part, Yglesias is better than that, which is why I like his blog a lot. "

Exactly. That particular post was not your best moment. To your credit, it kinda stuck out in that regard. With x number of posts, that's inevitable.

"Matthew explains his credibility ("I'm far from an expert here"), and links us to somebody with more credibility, while cautioning us that he is predisposed to be in favor of that category of solution. How have I been misled or misinformed?"

Not much of a defense. Admits he's not an expert (knows little to nothing about it), and tosses out an airy shot at a solution to which he is predisposed? What could go wrong? To put it another way, how have we been led or informed?

The 'oh let's spout on THAT' post is, thankfully, not typical of this blog.

But elite loco is also right; Appell didn't really add to the conversation, other than by essentially pointing and saying 'that ... stupid'. The rest of his rant added nothing at all.

Other than starting this thread ...

Posted by drinkof | July 11, 2008 10:19 AM

In other words, give the blogosphere it's goddamn peanut?

Oh, indeed.

Posted by Freddie | July 11, 2008 10:21 AM

What sucks is this post, not the blog. I read this blog twice a day. Why? I'm busy. I have a job that commands a lot of my attention. What I get from Matt are frequent insights into how I might see things if I focused on them just a little more clearly than I do.

I don't turn to Matt for insight into finance, which is where I make my living and have my own independent insight. I turn to Matt for insight into other things. He's stronger in some topics than others, but who isn't? And unlike many pundits, he's pretty clear about the difference between what he knows and what he doesn't know.

Why Matt in particular? Over time I find I get a very high incidence of "Why didn't I think of that?" moments, which is what I think a short-format blog is really good for. Links are good, but if I had time to follow many of them I might not need to read the blog in the first place. I'm somewhat in awe of the sheer number of lively and strong observations and arguments that Matt can come with in the course of a day. If only he could spell.

Posted by GSL | July 11, 2008 10:25 AM

What sucks is this post, not the blog. I read this blog twice a day. Why? I'm busy. I have a job that commands a lot of my attention. What I get from Matt are frequent insights into how I might see things if I focused on them just a little more clearly than I do.

I don't turn to Matt for insight into finance, which is where I make my living and have my own independent insight. I turn to Matt for insight into other things. He's stronger in some topics than others, but who isn't? And unlike many pundits, he's pretty clear about the difference between what he knows and what he doesn't know.

Why Matt in particular? Over time I find I get a very high incidence of "Why didn't I think of that?" moments, which is what I think a short-format blog is really good for. Links are good, but if I had time to follow many of them I might not need to read the blog in the first place. I'm somewhat in awe of the sheer number of lively and strong observations and arguments that Matt can come with in the course of a day. If only he could spell.

Posted by GSL | July 11, 2008 10:27 AM

I know my blog sucks. If it didn't, I'd actually have a readership of more than 10 people.

OTOH, I guess I can claim that my blog is such a ground-breaking work of artistic genious that nobody appreciates it? ;)

Posted by DAS | July 11, 2008 10:30 AM

The valuable thing about blogs, for me, is the comments. (This blog in particular.) Once in a while MY has a really great post, but usually his blog entries are just an opportunity for some insightful discussion. Nobody can be well versed on every topic, but often someone who IS informed will chime in with some info or a link. I also get multiple points of view. Even Al/Fred are helpful by giving me the Republican spin, and they have a good point once in a while, too.

When I read a newspaper article nowadays, even if it's written by an expert, I rarely feel like I've gotten the whole story. That's why I mostly read blogs instead of news sites.

Posted by fp | July 11, 2008 10:32 AM

I think Appell might as well complain that reading book reviews isn't as rewarding as reading books. But I think reading books recommended by book reviewers who usually share my taste is more rewarding than reading books at random. Likewise, I read bloggers mainly for their recommendations of best of the web reading. That btw is why I usually skip over Matt's posts about nonsense from Peretz and Krauthammer.

Posted by Gary Sugar | July 11, 2008 10:33 AM

The most disappointing thing about the blogosphere is how provincial it essentially is.

I had this, probably naive, idea that the internet as such and blogs in particular would lead to a better understanding of and interaction between different nations and cultures. Instead it seems that people love nothing more than talking about things they are already intimately familiar with, be that on the personal, local or national level. When confronted with 'the other' most people seem to have an urge to quickly pigeonhole it so that can be accommodated within existing frames of reference, thus reinforcing stereotypes or at best commonplaces, which generally hinder mutual understanding.

Of course there is a bit of a language barrier to overcome, but the cultural elites of non-English speaking countries are usually quite proficient in English and many academics from English speaking countries have experience of or even studied foreign cultures.

There are a few, not very popular, exceptions and I'm not blaming anyone, it's just that I expected a little more in this regard.

Posted by novakant | July 11, 2008 10:37 AM

I'm also not too sure I agree with Appell's idea that somehow, there exists this glorious bastion of expert opinion that is at all accessible, intelligible and so much more correct than certain intelligent, well-informed laypeople (i.e., MY).

As a commenter above said, for example, the water resources issue isn't really all that complicated, except from a political (and therefore, economic) perspective. But the problem is simple, and the obvious solution is probably the correct one, it's just hard to implement. It doesn't take some fictional mountain-climbing, phone-calling, water-quality-testing 50-year-old with 30 years experience to know that. And while that person's perspective would obviously be interesting, it'd be almost certainly no better than MY's opinion on literally everything else. So if I really wanted to dive deep into that area, I could just hang out on water policy blogs, which I'm sure are numerous and written by relative experts. And I'm pretty sure there are a number of other issues like this - you can know net neutrality is a good idea without knowing how to debug a TCP/IP stack.

As another commenter pointed out, it's not like you could go read "expert" literature on a subject and somehow come away informed. Academic papers are usually so jargon-dense and specialized that I really have no way of evaluating them, so they could be obfuscating in order to make some really ridiculous point and I'd have no way of knowing. That really wouldn't make me any more informed than if I just read the analysis of an intelligent generalist with an interest in the subject, and in fact the latter would probably do a much better job of educating me.

Posted by Abe | July 11, 2008 10:39 AM

This post nicely illustrates why I read this blog. Matt's a scattershot writer who hits on 20 different subjects per day, freely admits when he doesn't know what he's talking about, links to people who do know what they're talking about, and doesn't have delusions of grandeur regarding his own importance or the blogosphere's importance. As a bonus, his horrific typos make us all feel better about our own writing skills.

Compare/contrast with Glenn Reynolds or Victor Davis Hanson -- credentialed academic bloggers who don't seem to know what they're talking about in their own subjects of expertise, feel entitled to dispense expert opinions on subjects they know absolutely fuck-all about, and honestly believe that their cadre of self-congratulatory right-wing know-nothings have made traditional media obsolete.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 11, 2008 10:43 AM

The subject here is punditry, not blogs. As was mentioned above, MY and other bloggers are a thousand times better and more informative than most traditional pundits, including the ones in the papers.

Generalist blogs don't suck as a *genre*, for reasons given above (some particular ones do though). If you uncritically accept your favorite blogger's opinion a lot, you aren't using the internet very well (or your brain). And you aren't reading the comments, in the case of this and other superior blogs. The problem of course is not blogs like MY's at all, but the blogs designed strictly to cheerlead you into some position.

The two basic kinds of blog, formally - the blog-proper: freeform, short posts mixed occasional with longer pieces; and the 'quasi-essay' type - both have their place (they are really the same thing but with converse empheses). I think MY has found a pretty good sweet spot for doing the first. I know his biases pretty well. He aggragates a lot of information in a coherent way. The more you learn, the more you want to learn. What's the problem?

I suppose Appell chose MY because the latter's influence is more subtle and therefore 'insidious', but he blows his own thesis by choosing a good blog instead of a shitty one.

information about precise subtopics needs to filter out of academia, think tanks, government agencies, or whatever, and be processed and synthesized intelligently by generalists.

Harvey jumps to the bottom line. The goal of the excercise is to raise the information baseline, which even lesser blogs probably do at the margin, and better ones certainly do in the main. Appell is whining.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 11, 2008 10:51 AM

The reason I read Matt is he's velly velly smart, in the way I like people to be smart. Therefore his blog is worthwhile. He is also funny, according to my sense of humour. Smarts + funny = daily logons. It does matter that -- vide longform pieces -- he can't write for sucksweets.

One random thing that impressed me: MY seemed to know before anyone why the Bradley effect couldn't explain certain of Obama's results, I don't recall quite which.

M., in lamplit choler, with Portishead on the twin Boses.

Posted by M | July 11, 2008 10:52 AM

Yes, and No, in that order. But sometimes things can be so sucky that they're entertaining...

Posted by Brett Bellmore | July 11, 2008 10:52 AM

Something I didn't address in my earlier comment is that Appell falls into a particularly annoying and common habit--he says "blogs suck" when what he really means is "opinion writing sucks."

So many takedowns of blogs prompt me to think "OK, but please explain how David Broder is any different." David Broder is glib. David Broder doesn't know anything, or do any research. Probably 90% of Americans have never heard of David Broder and never read one of his columns. David Broder writes, what, 500 words a week? You can't really argue that what he writes is more substantial, serious or weighty than the output of Andrew Sullivan or, indeed, Matthew Yglesias.

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 10:53 AM

peep's right. If MattY sucks, WE suck, and I'm not taking that from anyone. Appell sucks! Ha! There. The world returns to its previous equilibrium.

I know, this comment sucks too. If only I had spent the last twenty years researching the suckiness of blogs, this comment would be worth reading.

I'd like to remind us all here that forming ignorant opinions about complex issues is what does characterize and always has characterized the American voter (and the American non-voter, for that matter). I'm not about to abandon a cherished national tradition just because some blogger wants me to read original sources.

Posted by Daddy Love | July 11, 2008 10:55 AM

jonnybutter beat me to the punch....

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 10:58 AM

DAS:

OTOH, I guess I can claim that my blog is such a ground-breaking work of artistic genious that nobody appreciates it? ;)

In the same boat here. My blog is fifty years ahead of its time which is why it has only one reader. And that reader leaves rude comments.

Blogs can be like brain-storming sessions. You might not always agree with the blogger but the they can make you think of new things or old things in new ways.

Posted by Peter K. | July 11, 2008 11:08 AM

A blog post about how blog posts suck? How delightfully postmodern.

Posted by James F. Elliott | July 11, 2008 11:37 AM

I think Matt's right that this is a structural problem of many blogs, not an Yglesias problem. The need to produce content merges with the need to have an opinion about everything in the worst possible way, and suddenly bloggers are producing Uninformed Answers to Complex Questions, with bad results for everyone.

That water post wasn't Matt's best moment, but in fairness he generally has a better handle on this than most.

Posted by G C | July 11, 2008 11:58 AM

I read this blog because Matthew's view of the world often differs from mine, but Matthew, more than many people who write about politics, usually has the good sense to acknowledge that certainty is almost always a foolish stance when discussing politics or human behavior generally.

In contrast, his worst writing tends to occur when he casually assigns evil intent and actions to those he opposes with very little reflection. A good example of this was when he recently singled out oil companies for poisoning the planet, after just having jetted back and forth across the country, for the critical purpose of gabbing with other people while dining well in Aspen. Now, perhaps Matthew is well aware of this incongruity, and is merely being ironic when he engages in such moralisms, but it doesn't come off that way, perhaps because insipidly moralistic rhetoric devoid of self-awareness is such a common occurence in Blogistan, covering all parts of the political spectrum.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 12:07 PM

elle loco @9:39 and Adam Herman immediately after combine to sum up quite well why MY has the readership he does and why Mr. Appel doesn't.

Posted by Bragan | July 11, 2008 12:10 PM

Someone on the Internets hates something?

Posted by Sirkowski | July 11, 2008 12:12 PM

Appell says that blogs are a waste of time. But that's not a bug, that's a feature.

I read blogs because I'm at work doing something boring and looking to kill a little time before going back to doing something boring.

Surely I'm not the only one.

Posted by hubcap | July 11, 2008 12:15 PM

Oh, David Appell? I thought it said David Attell for a second, the comedian. If Dave Attell thinks you suck, you should probably just give up and quit, he's probably right. Dave Attell is awesome.

Posted by too many steves | July 11, 2008 12:19 PM

hubcap -- No, you're not alone.

Posted by Bragan | July 11, 2008 12:29 PM

Oh I don't know, I've lived in Arizona for 9 years and I thought Matt had a pretty good idea: distribute water via markets. I thought I had an idea to improve on it: give all water rations to individual, live human beings, and let corporations buy water from the people instead of the other way round.

It amuses me to imagine, "what if the Bellagio had to buy some homeless guy's unused bath water to evaporate through its dancing fountain?" The homeless guy would get some money and the Bellagio would just have to let the market sort it out.

I don't think I should have to spend a day at the library, or expose myself to identity theft by posting my real name, to validate my daily entertainment.

Posted by Aatos | July 11, 2008 12:31 PM

elle, so the solution to the water problems in the west is that farming there will just "have to stop"? Water isn't the only input in farming, you know. California's Central Valley doesn't get much rain, so it requires extensive irrigation and imported water, but the soil is so good that just about anything will grow there. If you mean water will have to cost more for farmers in the West, then that's probably right. If you mean, "well, we'd better ban farming," that's very wrong. Irrigation was a major development in human history. I don't think we need to regress to pre-6,000 B.C. here and only farm stuff where it grows naturally.

Posted by too many steves | July 11, 2008 12:38 PM

Will Allen's comment above means more to me. As to Appell's critique, Matt's response strikes me as about right. (JMO, of course.)

Posted by RW Rogers | July 11, 2008 12:39 PM

Judging from the "climate skeptic" flavor of his own *blog*, it sounds like David Appell takes issue with your stance on water management. He opts to attack the author's credibility rather than the argument, which is why I found his post barely readable. Frankly, I don't even know why I read (or commented on) this post, because self-referencing is the one thing I truly hate about blogging.

Lastly, a science writer (who is not a practicing scientist himself) probably shouldn't be attacking someone's credibility on an issue that they write about.

Posted by Joel | July 11, 2008 12:47 PM

Appell opts to attack the author's credibility rather than the argument, which is why I found his post barely readable. Frankly, I don't even know why I read (or commented on) this post, because self-referencing is the one thing I truly hate about blogging. Someone who makes their living writing about a profession in which they are not a current member probably shouldn't be attacking another's credibility as a writer.

Posted by Joel | July 11, 2008 12:48 PM

My blog is fifty years ahead of its time which is why it has only one reader. And that reader leaves rude comments. - Peter K.

Quit exaggerating. I've just seen your blog. It's only 45 years ahead of its time ;)

Posted by DAS | July 11, 2008 12:56 PM

too many steves and elle, there are far better methods of irrigation and farming we could be using that would improve things dramatically and quickly. Last I knew spray irrigation, rather than drip irrigation, was still by far the most common method-- even though the former wastes tons of water and the latter is quite efficient. We should also stop wasting Arizona's water to grow pima cotton (I don't give a fuck how soft it is, Land's End).

novakant, I'm not sure I agree. The blogosphere hasn't changed the conversation radically, but it has brought more voices in-- I certainly heard more from 'normal Iraqis' thanks to blogs than I ever would have twenty years ago.

Posted by Persia | July 11, 2008 12:57 PM

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that even this entire post falls somewhere between tedious and banal.

Posted by Neo | July 11, 2008 1:39 PM

Nobody's gonna stop farming the Central Valley, fer Chrissake. But I do suspect that water-intensive cultivation of cotton and alfalfa in the Sonoran desert is gonna have to go.

BTW, this Appell character turns out to have a physics Ph.D. and a whole roster of impressive shit on his CV. So maybe he really needn't waste time reading blogs. On the other hand, he seems to severely undervalue the practice of testing one's own lay opinions about all kinds of important stuff (like Western water rights) against the lay opinions of fellow citizens who one has reason to respect. It's not a satisfying pursuit for perfectionists, though. Then, too, there's a technocratic fallacy lurking in his faith in Those Who Know More Shit. (Paging Bernard Lewis, Michael Scheuer, and on and on....) Pragmatists know better!

Posted by elle loco | July 11, 2008 3:02 PM

See, here is a classic example of how Matt really holds everybody here in contempt.

This is why he doesn't bother fixing his typos, his bad grammar, his broken links - even a donation link for a wounded friend - and especially why he won't get off his fat ass and complain about the fucked up server.

This is why he screeches and butts in on the "Table" and "Bloggingheads" videos. He has no respect.

No, he doesn't give a shit. He's a punk kid who's happy to get paid writing zip for a living. It's a great job. Why ruin it by actually giving a shit about either what he writes, who reads it, or how it's delivered to the morons he doesn't give a shit about.

Matt Yglesias. Big Media Matt.

How about "Doesn't Give a Shit Matt"?

How about "Ignorant Punk Wannabe Pundit Matt"?

How about "Bill Kristol is eons ahead of you, despite being a complete always wrong idiot, Matt"?

How about growing up and taking some responsibility for who you are, Matt?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 11, 2008 6:29 PM

Richard is still upset Matthew called him a troll.

Posted by mad6798 | July 11, 2008 6:43 PM

Richard, that is no way to respond to Matt's kindness in answering your questions. Shame on you.

Posted by blah | July 11, 2008 6:54 PM

It was clear to me that what Appell was REALLY saying was something along the lines of, "Why are they asking Matt for his opinion when they should be asking ME -- i.e., an important serious journalist who does serious investigative reporting?" :)

Posted by Jennifer Ouellette | July 12, 2008 11:41 AM

I actually thought David's post was rather silly. People seem all fed up these days about how anti-intellectual people are, and this critique often focuses more specifically on our alleged disrespect of expertise and rational inquiry. Witness the books of Al Gore and Susan Jacoby (is that her name?).

Now, these memes exist for a reason. Bush has determined his economic and environmental policies, among others, with the aid of his political shop rather than Treasury and the people with a relevant Ph.D. The Christian Right and other religious fanatics do not even seem to evaluate evidence in the same way that empiricists do. Some time in the 20th century Yeats' prophecy--"things fall apart, the center cannot hold"--came true. But I still reject the criticism's of this David fellow. Why?

Expertise goes hand-in-glove with intellectual balkanization. If you care about a humanist education--an education that does something to alert us of what matters, and what does not, to the goal of creating an energetic and fulfilled humanity--you need to be interested in humanity quite broadly. One must be interested in psychology, in economics, in history, in evolution, etc. All these subjects offer a manner of analysis; while avoiding eclecticism, we should not limit ourselves to one manner. Similarly, there is something of a false choice presented here. The Renaissance man does not aim to be equally useless in all subjects, but rather equally useful. He tries to develop real competence in manner subjects, the better to explain the intellectual context of a particular issue and the relevance of that issue in comparison to countless others, which an expert might think outside his or her field.

Matt, whatever his ignorance of the west and non-apartment housing, is an expert on the presidential campaign, how ideas and politics interact, foreign policy, and 90's alt-rock; he is a worthy dilettante on the subjects of basketball and frequently discussed political issues such as fiscal and environmental policy. I read Matt because I do find him regularly useful, and also a joy to read.

Posted by Robert | July 12, 2008 12:57 PM

Mad6798: "Richard is still upset Matthew called him a troll."

Nope. Couldn't care less about that.

Blah: "Richard, that is no way to respond to Matt's kindness in answering your questions. Shame on you."

Hey, he lied about not knowing what the questions were, since I emailed him the questions as well as having asked them twenty eleven times on half the posts I'd made to that point. If he even bothered to glance over the comments on these threads, he would have known them.

So he either doesn't give a rat's ass - which is what I accuse him of - or he's a liar. Neither are attractive traits for a blogger.

But that's old news. The current reality is what I said. This is a pathetically badly run blog, at least for a blog being run by a major magazine and by a guy who claims to be "Big Media Matt". All he has to do is pay a little attention.

I mean, really, how busy is this guy? What does he do with this blog that takes more than maybe an hour a day? He can't scan the comments? He can't engage the posters? He can't even PROOFREAD his fucking posts?

I mean, really, that's pathetic. So it has to be the pure arrogance of a punk kid who doesn't give a shit. I can't see any other answer. If Matt has one, let him say it.

Or maybe he doesn't give a shit to even do that.

Sure, he doesn't have to answer anything *I* say. But if he has any respect for anybody including himself, he can at least commiserate with his posters about the fucking server and try to get that fixed.

This blog makes him look like an idiot. I'd be bitching if it were my blog.

So which is it? Does he give a shit or not?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 12, 2008 7:47 PM

yep, you're an idiot, and you get paid for being an idiot. But you think you're smart, which makes the whole thing quite amusing.

Posted by israel | July 12, 2008 8:43 PM

The simple point here is that Matt should do more research before talking about stuff. That research should occasionally involve calling real experts on the phone. His dilettante-ism is approaching Megan McArdle levels.

Even two hours of real research on something can teach you a lot. Right now, a lot of the utility of his blog is just checking the unconsidered gut opinion of the young, smart bien-pensant establishment left. It's like wonk free association.

Posted by MQ | July 14, 2008 10:06 AM

To develop real expertise requires years of study, research, etc. And years of study, research, etc. can't be adequately condensed into a blog post. Thus, blog reading is a completely worthless exercise and nobody should really engage in it

Yea, people like Tanta and CR at CalculatedRiskfind it impossible to condense adequate info into their posts.

Posted by Edie | July 22, 2008 3:07 PM

By Request: Does This Blog Suck? Do All Blogs Suck?

Comments (71)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories