This site has moved to robert.williamsonline.us.
Richard Poe explains Why the Blogosphere is Conservative.
Here is the thrust of his article:
The answer to all three questions is the same. Talk radio, webzines, list servers, message boards and now blog sites have one thing in common. They are interactive. They let people talk back. Consequently, it is physically impossible for new media to do what old media did – that is, to shove unpopular ideas down peoples’ throats and pretend that the audience likes it.
...
Ah, but that’s the beauty of blogging. The system is self-selecting. The worst blogs sink to the bottom. No one sees them. The best blogs rise to the top, borne aloft by the sheer number of bloggers who link to them.
Paul Musgrave complains that the self-selecting system is inherently flawed.
1. The "best bloggers" comment intelligently on politics. (stated explicitly)
2. The "best bloggers rise to the top, borne aloft by the sheer number of bloggers who link to them." (stated explicitly)
3. Therefore, a blogger's worth is determined by links from bloggers with fewer links. (implicit)
4. Bloggers with fewer links are worse than bloggers with more links. (corollary to #2)
5. Therefore, the worst bloggers choose the best.
What Musgrave is missing is the difference between "thinkers" and "linkers". Only a few really exceptional blogs can do both. Generally, a blog will either contain few, long, well-written, time consuming posts (e.g., USS Clueless ), or many posts with a link to a "thinker" post or a news story, sometimes with a bit of comment.
Musgrave says that only the thinkers are any good. He writes:
A bad blog is a cheap imitation of Atrios or Instapundit: lots of little posts with inscrutable meanings and a link in the middle of the sentence.
...
A good blog, by contrast, is well-written and depends less on external links than on the expression of a single, well-formed (or even a half-baked) opinion.
This comes as no surprise. Musgrave denigrates the very feedback system that causes the blogosphere to reflect popular opinion. Because without that feedback/rating system, all you have is a few more conservative voices in the world. And mass media is still free "to shove unpopular ideas down peoples’ throats and pretend that the audience likes it."
(Because I am a "bad blogger", here is a link to Steven Den Beste's explanation of the difference between the two types of blogs.)
Robert,
Thanks for the links --
-- but about popular opinion:
I'd rather read Lileks any day of the week (especially Saturdays and Sundays) than the normal Kathryn Jean Lopez-style "short blogs." As for the feedback system of popular opinion -- Poe didn't consider the most obvious feedback: Server statistics. (Although even that is dubious. As I said in my Hoosier Review post, truth is not statistical.)
By the way, just glancing around your blog -- you are not a "bad blogger." :)
Posted by: Paul on October 7, 2002 05:28 PMAlso -- I just noticed anew the line "Musgrave denigrates the very feedback system that causes the blogosphere to reflect popular opinion. Because without that feedback/rating system, all you have is a few more conservative voices in the world." Before you get the wrong ideas -- I'm perfectly ok with conservative and libertarian ideas being expressed! In fact, my own blog normally hews to those lines (or did, back when I wrote about politics). It's just that I disagree with Poe about the specific nature of the feedback system, and about the majority-vote nature of truth.
Posted by: Paul on October 7, 2002 05:31 PMPaul,
I agree that the "thinkers" like Lileks and Den Beste and the rest are more informative and enjoyable than the "linkers". But without the "linkers" there would be no blogosphere. The ability to find the "thinkers" would be greatly diminished.
One of the maxims of networking and particularly the internet is that the value of a node is largely measured by the number of links from it. This is why Yahoo and Google are so popular. They provide no content of their own (Yahoo does, but I'm referring to the web directory part of Yahoo and not the other pieces) but they help you find what you are looking for. Sites that consist largely of links to other sites provide the threads that weave this web.
Of course, the "linking" sites would be pointless without content sites. But the "content" sites would be far less useful without all the sites that provide the messy tangles of links that echo, quote, and publicize them.
I disagree with Poe about the specific nature of the feedback system, and about the majority-vote nature of truth.
First, I don't think anyone is contending that truth is statistical or established by majority vote. I don't see how Poe's article or my comments convey that; I certainly don't believe it.
That is, unless the truth you are talking about is "what do people think?". That truth is indeed statistical and measurable. Surveying the blogosphere is a good way of observing what people think. When you see the same sentiments echoed over and over, the same sites receiving large numbers of "what he said!" links, then you can deduce that this does in fact represent "what people think".
Secondly, links provide a "word of mouth" publicity that is far more significant than server statistics (or "market share" if you will). I am far more likely to be persuaded about the quality of anything - a business, a product, or a website - based on personal references than on statistics like market share.
If 3 of my family members recommend a particular mechanic to me, then I am very likely to trust that mechanic and not consider other factors such as price. Similarly, if I see approving links (especially with interesting excerpts and thoughtful comments) on some of my favorite sites, then I am quite likely to spend my time following those links. But I would not be likely to stumble across those sites on my own or take the time to regularly visit them even if I did find them.
Here's a perfect example: I found your site(s) via a "linker" blog. Actually it was 2 or 3 levels into my surfing. I'd never have even known you existed if not for the linker sites.
The linker sites provide the sort of word-of-mouth publicity that is essential for the popularity of anything, as well as acting as a mass of editors that evaluate, critique, and recommend content on the web.
The web is a self-organizing entity, and the "linker" sites are the ones that provide the organization. It's not a bug; it's a feature.