The link below is to a video of a segment from a Bob Costas show that aired last night. If you’ve come to my blog and know what I tend to write about, even if you’re not a sports fan, you’ll be riveted by this video. It’s worth spending the full 18 minutes watching it (although you could probably skip Braylon Edwards’ comments; poor guy got caught between Lincoln and Douglas). The video speaks to SO many issues, that it’s hard to know where to start with my reflections. First, the link:
[NOTE: Before you click on the link, please know that there is language in the segment that may not be suitable for your workplace (depends on where you work, I suppose) and is probably not suitable for the ears of children]
Now my thoughts:
- I really enjoyed reading Friday Night Lights. It’s the only Buzz Bissinger book I’ve ever read. And, his credibility as a sportswriter/journalist is fairly impeccable. But, OMG…what a crumudgeon! He doesn’t get it; not one bit. He could be every old school administrator, every old academic, every old [insert education professional here].
- I think Will Leitch was caught off guard. Had he known what Bissinger’s take was going to be, I’m sure he’d have been better prepared to eloquently argue the place of and relevance of the blogosphere.
- It’s hilarious that Costas was the moderator. He’s an admitted traditionalist. He railed against the wildcard system for baseball playoffs and was dead wrong (IMHO). This was like having E.D. Hirsch moderate a debate between John Dewey and Edward Thorndike.
I was going to write more; lots more. But, I think I’ll let the video speak for itself…
Hi, Jon.
If possible, please explain what it is you think Buzz doesn’t get about this topic of discussion.
Hmmmm…he doesn’t get that the 21st century is well upon us. We live in the information age where the Internet changes all of the “rules” about publishing and journalism. We don’t need to worry about the blogosphere nearly as much as we have to worry about how poorly our educational system(s) is(are) preparing young people to manage their way through these times. In other words, in the face of the onslaught of information, information literacy becomes of paramount importance.
Thanks, Jon.
If I may, allow me to disagree with you about this perception of yours, in this instance.
After listening to that video clip, I would contend that Bissenger understands the point you’re making quite clearly and would only disagree with you about your perception that much of the content in the blogosphere actually ‘qualifies’ as a form of legitimate ‘information’ which needs to be understood properly by educated human beings.
Absolutely you may disagree with me. That’s a big part of the beauty of “Web 2.0″ within the information age. That being said, I do think everything that is “published” is legitimate information (though I suppose that depends on your definition of “legitimate”). The key, though, is deciphering “good” from “bad” information. IMHO, Bissinger, paints the blogosphere with too broad a brush; he implies that it’s almost all bad. I’m not willing to go that far.
Also, I suspect that the vast majority of Deadspin readers know what Deadspin is and what purpose it serves. So, there too, Bissinger underestimates the blog-reading generation.
Then I suppose what matters most is whether or not you think Deadspin (for example) qualifies as either “good” or “bad” information?
For Bissinger it seems clear that it qualifies as the latter; while he would have no disagreement with any blog writer who fits into his definition of a “good” information provider.
I guess Bissinger came around slightly towards the end, but I really got the sense that he believes that anybody without the proper “credentials” and that doesn’t play by the rules of journalism is “bad.” I may be biased by my own experiences from my own field of study (education, specifically educational leadership) where there is so much disdain for technology and new media and that disdain comes mostly from fear of the unknown and fear of loss of control. IMHO, Bissinger implied that he feared that journalism was losing control of the “profession.”
While, from my perspective, Bissinger seemed to be railing against the “pseudo profession of journalism/writing/reporting/critiquing/critical analysis done ‘poorly’” … which for him would include, at least:
(i) Something done without the ‘proper’ intentions, in the first place;
(ii) Something designed to titillate rather than educate or explore thoughtfully;
(iii) Something which is profane for the sake of being profane;
(iv) Something which is done without expertise, craftsmanship or artistry;
etc., etc., etc. …
Here is my take. Buzz gets what blogs are capable of – that is why he is rightfully scared of them. However, what Buzz is missing is not that blogs have changed the rules, which he seems to think, but that they have thrown out the rules entirely. THERE ARE NO RULES! The rules of Leitch’s blog are more akin to the rules of your local pub … which is to say there aren’t many.
In the Information Overload environment of the Internet, the very reason the “journalistic rules” were created in the first place (limited information access and protecting knowledge diffusion in a democracy) have been eliminated. You see this with TV to a lesser extent. Certainly the rules Cronkite functioned by are different than those Chris Matthews functions on. As more information becomes available (thousands of channels now) the necessity for journalistic integrity reduces. The Internet has just taken this concept to the extreme. It has not changed the journalistic game, it is sort of eliminated it. Buzz doesn’t seem to get it. He is trying to hold Leitch to the same standards he was held to as a young journalist coming up. But, those standards simply don’t apply to Leitch. If you don’t want to call him a journalist, fine, but you don’t have to be a journalist to be a publisher … and it is the publishing that makes the money, not the journalism.
Justin B,
I think Buzz understands very well the points you are trying to make.
I think you might still not understand the point(s) that he was trying to make however.
In your opinion, is a ‘society completely without rules’
i) Democratic, or ii) Anarchical?
Which form of society do you prefer?
In my opinion, Buzz clearly prefers the former.
Yeah, what he said. Spot on, Justin. This is the wild west and nearly anything goes.
Khandor, I think the Internet is closer to anarchy than democracy. The only “rules” that come to mind are laws related to speech. Legitimate threats will be policed. Defamation is still against the rules. But, titilation? It’s not what I do, but…it’s fair game. “Proper” intentions? What’s a proper intention?
Your choice between democracy and anarchy is a false choice Khandor. For your choice to be accurate society must be equal to the Internet, which it isn’t at all. Society is dependent on the Internet these days, but it is distinct from the Internet. The Internet is not this thing that is going to take over all of our lives, it is simply a new information source. In a democracy, the more information sources, the better. The Internet is good for democracy (think Drudge) as what was once privileged is no longer so.
What the internet has done is move the “quality decision.” It used to be that the few needed to make quality decisions for the many. In that environment you needed standards to make sure the few did not screw up that quality decision for the many. This is why, in his founding of the educational structures in the U.S., Thomas Jefferson said we needed to educate those persons “whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue” to pass information along to the many.
However, that dynamic has been eliminated by the advances in technology that have allowed for the “general diffusion of knowledge” that Thomas Jefferson never dreamed was possible. This is what Jefferson said in the Bill that he wrote to structure public education in Virginia.
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=408
As you read the first part of that … you see Jefferson privileging the “general diffusion of knowledge” as essential to a democracy. As he goes on Jefferson gets more practical and said, in the world of 1778, the information flow capabilities dictated that a few passed information along to the many. However, Jefferson did not live in the age of the Internet. In the age of the Internet, the many have access to as much information as the few. It is not “perfect information” or “total information” but it is as close as we have come yet. Certainly much closer than we were in 1778 and even in 1978. This omnipresence of information can actually strengthen a democracy as the decisions that were once made by the few are now made by the many (the very point of a democracy).
So, it is wrong to draw a connection between the relative anarchy of the internet and the governmental structure of a society. You may be right that there is a growing anarchy, but it is merely an anarchy of information … and I would assume that Jefferson would be very happy with an Anarchy of Information as it is a very healthy concept in a democracy.
Justin,
Before we can go any further you will need to explain to me how it is that you think ‘the internet’ is NOT equivalent to ‘a society’?
By society I did not mean there cannot be human connections on the Web. Sorry if I led you to that conclusion. I don’t want to get into an extended diatribe about my definition of society … mostly because I am not sure if I have one … but suffice to say that multiple types of activities can happen on the net. The net can provide information (largely what blogs do), it can serve as a medium for human interaction (message boards, comments sections) and it can do other things …. Anyway, all of this put together is shrinking the world and moving information around quicker and between larger and larger groups of people. You and I Khandor are talking about a new piece of information provided to us by Jon and we are having a discussion on about the nature of the Net and its relationship to a democracy. That’s healthy in a democracy. This discussion would not have happened 15 years ago. That more and more of us are talking about more and more things is a healthy part of a democracy. That is all I meant to say.
Justin,
IMO, Buzz would have little to no concern over our specific exchange of ‘information’, to this point.
Neither of us have …
i) Used any profane words … yet;
ii) Defamed any real life person;
iii) Linked to any pornography;
iv) Put up a picture which intends to embarass or bring ridicule to the person(s) in it;
v) Made unsavory references to private doings of others which are wholly unsubstantiated and would best be described as gossip/rumour-mongering;
vi) Conducted ourselves in a vile, disrespectful or mean-spirited way, either, toward one another or anyone else;
vii) Have made claims or statements of fact, under the shroud of anonymity, which we would not dare to make while standing in the town square where we live … without wearing a balaclava;
viii) Permitted others to create material for display on our website which we then ‘publish’ for profit or titillation (or both), but then disavow responsibility for;
ix) etc.
IMO what Buzz is railing against is the shift to lawlessness, anarchy, crudeness and intentional cruelty which is all to often associated with not just the internet but the (de-)evolving values in our different societies (whether technologically-based or not) around the world.
Shorter, snappier, less well researched, less well made, and increasingly hurtful ‘information’ is what I think Buzz finds offensive.
Khandor – I think you’ve got it there. First, I’ve enoyed this exchange – lots of good information with a few opinions for good measure. IMO, however, it boils down to Buzz wants to equate journalism and blogs, therefore they threaten him. I am in total agreement with Buzz that this is not the type of journalism that we would want to be considered as researched and globally encompassing. However, it is like the conversations at the local coffeshop, bar, street corner, in which none of the participants are deeply educated, researched, or informed. The key here is that we don’t expect them to be. The transcripts that Buzz reads are produced by people that we should consider lightly is all I am saying.
Marshall,
Thanks very much for your kind acknowledgment.
A follow-up question …
Do you think it’s only Buzz equating ‘Journalism’ with ‘Blogs’? … and then feeling threatened.
Or, might it be a two-way cut? … with “Bloggers” equating what they/we do with ‘Journalism’ to pose a ‘threat’ to those like Buzz.
Khandor, I think the overwhelming majority of bloggers don’t consider themselves journalists nor do they care about such titles. I think they see an opportunity to “publish” their ideas and want to add their voice to the world of information…no more, no less. My point continues to be that what matters is whether or not young people are learning how to judge published material. In other words, I don’t think it’s the credentials of the source that matters as much as it is the credibility and legitimacy of the information that’s published. Many educators have condemned Wikipedia because they can’t imagine that a global collaboration of potentially uncredentialed people could put together a legitimate source of information. But, in fact, Wikipedia has turned out to be more reliable and more accurate than printed encyclopedias published by supposedly legitimate and credible professionals. Digital and information literacy, IMHO, is THE real collection of 21st Century skills and dispositions that our children need to possess.
Khandor
Jon states well what I would believe. I don’t consider myself a journalist at all. Actually I would mostly call myself an opinionated loud mouth that likes discussion and debate. If a world hung on my accuracy and delivery of information, it would not be long until we were in ruin. On the other hand, I think we need to ask the questions, and the answers need to be considered among the concepts of reliability, intent, and reputation. If you want an opinion, I think I can rate high across that board. If you want information on the political front, I would fall low in at least one if not all three areas.
I believe there is a place for both true journalism, which I don’t believe blogging is, and the stuff we are doing here. I’m sure I ruffled a few feathers there, but I will say again that this is closer to coffehouse talk than reporting or journalism. My researching of any topic is either slim or non-existent, for example, and I believe that would be downright fraudulent in the journalism field.
Are we professional and appropriate here? Yes. Is it productive? Yes. Are all sites so? No. At the same time, IMHO (I’ll start adding the H now too, Jon – thanks) this is a good outlet for us to discuss, share, and advance our thinking – individually and collectively. Now take that concept to those that want to rip on professional athletes, politicians, etc. Can I say the same thing? Sadly, not even close.
Jon & Marshall,
I agree with the thrust of both of your entries, re: the expression of our ideas and, in general, good blogs … funny thing is … so, too, might Buzz Bissinger, IMHO.
In case you hadn’t seen it, here’s Sarah Schorno’s (Huffington Post) take on the Costas Now piece:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-schorno/bob-costas-just-doesnt-ge_b_99662.html
Agreed.
Jon
Good call on Schorno’s entry. I think she is spot on. Thanks for the reference. See – smart, shepherd, well-intentioned!