On Blogs and Bloggers
May 16th, 2008 by Bowden McElroyPosted in Bowden McElroy |
Nathan Finn on blogs and bloggers:
The information communicated was a mixed bag. Some of it included legitimate scoops, creating a sort of shadow-media that worked alongside (and often outdid) Baptist Press and Associated Baptist Press. Some of it was insightful commentary. Some of it was less insightful. Some of it was pure gossip and hearsay. Some of it was possibly gossip and hearsay. Some of it was probably not gossip and hearsay. Some of it was revolutionary, some of it was anarchy, some of it was cyber-cronyism, and some of it was heart-breaking. And that was just last month.
Dr. Finn, as usual, is both eloquent and thought provoking; I encourage you to read the whole post (Attention Southern Baptists: There Are No More Secrets). The thoughts this particular post provoked within me have to do with the comments we make and how those comments are perceived by others in the blogosphere. More specifically, why do we get so snarky with one another? What about those parts that are gossip and hearsay?
My first thought is that blogs and bloggers come in various styles. Some blogs are closely tied to a church or para-church organization. They are less of a blog and more of an electronic newsletter; PR is the name of the game. Not much gossip or hearsay in these blogs.
Other blogs are written as if the writer and a group of friends were sitting in a coffee shop knowing they are being overheard but carrying on as if they weren’t. The tone is looser, inside jokes abound, and sarcasm and irony may be employed liberally. Friends know when - and when not - to take each other seriously. We say things among friends in a way we would never say from behind a podium. I’m not saying we should, just that we do.
You can see how problems occur. We speak differently - use a different tone - over coffee at Starbucks or Panera. Language that may be appropriate among friends won’t go over as well with an outsider.
And, there are a few bloggers who appear to view themselves as the SBC’s fourth estate; probing for issues and broadcasting the news to the world. They not only know they are being read by a wide audience, they’re counting on it. These are the blogs we seem to get worked up over. I usually don’t have too many problems with the posts (articles) I read on these blogs, it’s the comments.
One problem is the immediacy of commenting. I suspect most of us write carefully and think twice before hitting the publish button for a post we’ve written. Comments, however, are generally written off the cuff and on the fly. That’s the first problem. The second is the need to be right. “I didn’t say ALL… I said SOME”. Or, “I didn’t say he SAID that… I said it SEEMS LIKE that’s what he was thinking”. I’ve seen too many comment streams hijacked by obsessive debate over minutia.
If I’m sitting on a panel and a member of the audience confronts me I politely thank him for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts and work harder at communicating precisely what I mean. If I’m at the coffee shop with a group of friends I might say something only slightly nicer than “you’re ugly and so’s your mother”. So one explanation for the snarkiness of some blogs is that some commenters think they’re in a coffee shop while others believe they are in a more formal forum.
The biggest problems I see on blog posts and comments are related to the issues of insight, analysis, and discernment. I’m convinced that one person’s insightful analysis is another person’s gossip. I believe few, if any, SBC bloggers (most of whom are ministers or seminary students or both) hit the publish button with the intent of providing gossip or hearsay. We think we’re giving the world the benefit of our keen insight and superior analytical skills.
So let me go way out on a limb here and suggest the chief problem is a lack of relationship. I don’t think we need rules or guidelines or protocols on blogging etiquette. There are plenty of those already written. Nor do I think we need to remind ourselves of the spiritual principles regarding guarding our tongue or how to speak the truth in love: most of us believe we do so already and that we’re writing for the greater good and the edification of all.
I think the missing piece is relationship. My friends let me be sarcastic because they are my friends. They put up with my occasional lapses in taste and decorum because they know me and know it is the exception rather than the rule. The same for when my insight is less than insightful. They put up with me being wrong - knowing they are right - because next month or next year they might be the one with the faulty reasoning or cloudy thinking. But that blogger I’ve never met who thinks my analysis is lacking and my intellect wanting… well, he’s ugly. And so’s his mother.
16 Responses to “On Blogs and Bloggers”
By Tim Rogers on May 16, 2008 at 4:10 am
Brother Bowden,
I love getting up early as it entitles me to be one of the first to read the advertised post. :>)
As bad as it pains me :>), I will have to agree with you on your last point. The relationship issue does play into the comment streams. For example, Alan Cross and I have disagreements all of the time. However, when Brother Alan makes a comment I know he is not trying to set me up so he can later come back and cut me with my own words. I know this because we have developed a relationship over the past couple of years. Don’t get me wrong, I have only met him, in person, once, but we have spoken numerous times on the telephone. There are many in the blogging world that would be the case for. Brother David Rogers has come to my church and we have enjoyed an extended meal and discussion time. Certainly, when he and I disagree I understand when he says things.
However, what truly bothers me is when words are dissected in minutiae in order to prove a point that is not there. For example someone could ask me if I quit beating my wife. I could respond, Yes. That would be a true statement because I have never beat my wife, but just because I responded without taking into account the double intent of the question, I am then placed into a 30 minute back and forth with every one that is in opposition to my position.
I do agree that relationship is important as we continue to dialog on these issues. Even then people are misunderstood and seemingly mis-represented. Notice that Brother Geoff’s post on Much Ado about Nothing at this time has 139 comments. He must have struck a chord about nothing. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
By SelahV on May 16, 2008 at 5:24 am
Tim…Seinfeld ran one of the most successful sitcoms in history and it was all about nothing. The problem is some folk’s “nothing” is other folk’s “something.”
Bowden: you have nailed this post to the wall. Thanks for your clarity AND your wit. selahV
By cb scott on May 16, 2008 at 5:54 am
Geoff, SelahV, Les and all other owners of IMPACT,
I will just make this comment and go on my way. So don’t worry about having to vote on my ban today.
Geoff, there was no need to apologize for the “soap opera” turn of the comment thread on “Much Ado About Nothing.”
It was a very enlightening little soap opera, indeed. Yes, very eye opening, I must say.
cb
By SelahV on May 16, 2008 at 6:01 am
CB…I am sorry. I don’t understand. Has someone banned you? I am replying to a post regarding bloggers and comments that I’ve seen run crazy at times. Did I use some offensive tone in my comment that you felt I was directing it at you? I can assure you, I did not have you in mind when I agreed with this post by Bowden. I love you, my brother. What has a “soap opera” got to do with Bowden’s post? And for the record, I don’t own any part of this blog other than the words I write. And some of those I need to eat occasionally because I forget to swallow them before I place them on the table. I don’t even have administrative editing abilities to the posts.
May God’s grace be sufficient today for all. selahV
By Geoff Baggett on May 16, 2008 at 6:15 am
Bowden,
You’re not ugly, and I’ve never seen your mother. But that guy in the picture … ;)
But, seriously - I think that if we had some of our blog conversations at Starbucks (we don’t have Panera out here in fly-over country), someone would have to call the cops. Pretty pathetic at times, I’d say.
CB,
You’re not banned. And we don’t vote. Remember? I don’t like business meetings. And, besides, I’ve already 10-4′d ya on all that. :)
By Bernard Shuford on May 16, 2008 at 6:47 am
I bet Bowden IS ugly, and he just uses Indiana Jones’ picture.
:P
By Bowden McElroy on May 16, 2008 at 8:10 am
I guess I’ll have to go back and read ALL 139 comments on Geoff’s post!
Geoff,
Things can get heated around passionate subjects. I’m likely to only be at Starbucks with people who are already my friends while anyone can join in a blog discussion. If I were to get that worked up over coffee I would probably just make a snide comment and leave; but in the blogosphere there’s a tendency to hang around and continue sniping.
By Bowden McElroy on May 16, 2008 at 8:16 am
Bernard,
No argument from me. I blessed in that I’m married to a gorgeous blonde; I think of it as ‘attractiveness by association’.
By Dave Miller on May 16, 2008 at 8:24 am
I have an observation which I cannot verify scientifically but which I have noticed since my first experiences on the net.
There is something about face-to-face conversation that seems to moderate us, to make us speak kindly, pull our punches, guard our words. There is no such filter on the internet. We tend to flame each other.
I guess it is a lack of accountability and responsibility for our words.
But I have seen it over and over again. Cyber-discussions seem to escalate into attack, innuendo and derogation so quickly.
It is an observation, not an accusation.
By Bernard Shuford on May 16, 2008 at 8:38 am
It’s rare that people get punched in the teeth on the ‘net. So we’re not careful. We feel free to rant.
Christians should do better, but we’re often the worst.
The stuff we write may well be used against us in a court of law someday. Is it so Christian that we would be convicted of that? Or will we be written off as pompous idiots who don’t follow the Christ we proclaim?
With that, I will abstain, lest I fall into the pit that I have digged for another man.
By cb scott on May 16, 2008 at 10:06 am
Bowden
Some people say the same things face-to-face as they do on a blog.
I will name seven:
Tim Rogers
Tim Guthrie
Wade Burleson
Bob Cleveland
Alan Cross
Ben Cole
cb
cb
By Bernard Shuford on May 16, 2008 at 10:25 am
Oh, boy.
By cb scott on May 16, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Bernard Shuford,
I will see your “Oh, Boy” and raise you one Bart Barber.
cb
By baptistidentity on May 16, 2008 at 4:22 pm
cb,
we have never net face toface over a cup of coffee have we?
By cb scott on May 16, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I don’t know who you are. So I would not know if we have had coffee or not.
I know your mother did not name you Baptist Identity.
Although, if she did you would still be doing better than me after my mother named me.
:-)
cb
By cb scott on May 16, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Three more:
David Worley
Debbie Kaufman
Peter Lumpkins
cb