Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Future Redux

There is an interesting discussion going that relates to the Brian Stuy issue, but it's on an older post called The Future of Journalism. I post it here so other readers can see it, as Blogger doesn't make it easy to see these things.

Though, I wish the anonymous poster with the great ideas would post his/her name or some identifier.


Anonymous said...

Thank you very much for the engagement. I don't have much of an ego, so I don't mind being anonymous.
Besides, I don't want to cloud your responses, which I find really great.
That is, I think you're being more objective when you respond to me, and that means a lot to me. It reduces a few of the variables, with only being able to analyze my words, without having the added extra thoughts running around in your head.

Maybe that should be a good topic.

Anonymity in Blogging.

(Freethinking here)-

Why do newspapers require an identifier? Credibility?

But in Blogspace, ranting seems to be the reason for their very existence. Anonymity seems to be an enhancement for discussion.

Yet, I post to a lot of blogs, and a lot of people use Haloscan. I'm told that even with anonymous posting, you can hunt down the ISP and server locations, and figure out who's posting.

There was a guy was bent on figuring out who I was instead of engaging in dialogue. Boggled my mind. Other than the obvious reasons (if the person is threatening you, or if is criminally slanderous (which is hard to prove with all the disclaimers in the blogosphere)), why would someone NEED to know who is responding to their wacko rants?

Only thing I can think of is ego.

Or perhaps figuring out marketing demographics.

Chuck Tanowitz said...

One other reason: pure curiosity. It's just nice to know who you're talking to, even if it's not a name, then a little about the person.

Since we're discussing biases, it's hard to know the person's point of view unless you know a little about them. Then again, this may come with days and weeks of anonymous postings.

Anonymous said...


I don't buy it... not from you, anyway. You already know that it kills the cat.

But besides that, why do you want to know my POV?

The "Psych 101" answer to that one is that you want to be able to further judge me.

(and I'm not dodging that, ego-wise)

But I thought the blog was a place to rant or discuss stuff because elsewhere nobody would listen to you?

So why would you want to judge somebody like you would elsewhere?

I think we would crave anonymity here.

Are you approaching the blog with your old paradigms? Do you think the new generation will as well?

There's some keys for you for the future of media!

Chuck Tanowitz said...

The new never entirely clears out the old. The blog isn't about creating new paradigms, but about extending traditional communications to broader audiences.

In many cases I've encouraged clients to start a blog even as they are people who already have an audience. That is, they are asked to speak at conferences and quoted regularly in the press.

The blog isn't necessarily a place to put stuff that no one will listen to, but to create a growing library of ideas that enables readers to fully understand a point of view.

As for judging you, it's a rather negative connotation. I prefer to simply understand your biases.

Just because you shield them behind the anonymous moniker, doesn't mean they won't come out. It will just take longer.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for engaging in discussion. I think we have a lot to offer each other.

Foremost tho, you can take out the ego element. I wasn't using "judgement" as a negative "you're condemning me to hell" connotation. I was using it in they psychological evaluation sense. "judgement" and "understanding bias" are identical in this regard.

"but to create a growing library of ideas that enables readers to fully understand a point of view"

So what you're saying is that if they didn't get it the first time around, they can look to the blog?

I dunno, it seems still like a marketing scheme to me.

That is, are you saying you want to "understand me" or are you wanting to "show yourself to me" (aka "marketing"). They are two distinctly different ideas.

In the first one, we go back and forth, and we validate each other's viewpoints, and you eventually realize that you are not alone in this world (que background mood violins). I can appreciate this. This would be a good reason to blog. I could see why clients would want that sort of feedback. And I could understand that essence of communication expansion. In that sense, anonymity would be a disadvantage to validation. I want to KNOW you. WHO ARE YOU!

But in the latter case, all you're really interested in is "getting the word out", or "selling"/"marketing". You're not really interested in "understanding" someone, you just want to make sure you've grabbed someone's attention, and that they've received the proper message.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing. Actually, I think this can often work better than the whole "understanding" thing. That is, if I approach communication as "I want to make sure you understand that I am talking about a RED APPLE" (RED APPLE = being a simple concept or idea that can be relatively easily be communicated), then a blog can be the way to go.
Feedback need only be minimal, and anonymity is not a problem, relatively.
Did the public get the message? Is the sales of RED APPLES increasing? Sometimes, merely by someone posting at all, means that people are aware of RED APPLES, even if they rant negatively about RED APPLES, or about the blogger.
As they say in Hollywood, "bad publicity is still publicity".

So are you concerned about feeling alone in this cruel cruel world, or are you interested in getting your message out there?

In Brian Stuy's blog, it seems clear which case we have. This is evident by the back and forth with the comments (common to blogs of this type):
Brian:"Look at these RED APPLES"
Other1:"I think you may actually have GREEN GRAPES there".
Other2:"Don't you understand?! Brian has been to China MUCH more than you! He must know RED APPLES!"
Other1:"Heyman, I just want to understand. I see GREEN GRAPES. What's the deal?"
Other2:"Shaddup you! They're RED APPLES! End of story!"
Brian:[to himself]"Hurray! the fruit business is booming! More trips to China for me!"

I don't agree with the "library" aspect of the Blog. At best it will only be used against you. "Library" suggests that someone is going to actually sit back and read, as in read over what you said before.
I dunno about you, but that sounds a lot like "email", and I just HATE email, especially at work. I would think that you'd be scaring the you-know-what out of your clients if you suggested that they were going to have a "library" of their collective speeches.
Speeches are steeped in context, and are only part of the communication structure when trying to relate ideas and interact with people.

The only people that are going to be looking at those are reporters looking for whatever it is they want to see.

Only speaking from my paradigm and from my experience, blogging seems to be very here-and-now. Rarely does anyone look over past posts (THIS post is a prime example), and people usually get miffed in blogs when you try to incorporate past posts and discussion topics into present discussions.