- ‹ previous
- 2039 of 2743
- next ›
Comments!
COMMENTS!....Jacob Levy talks about evolution of the blogosphere:
I'm one of the last of the oldline blogluddists who thinks that the decline of civility and decency the blogosphere can be traced to two events, one of which I won't tell you but one of which was the creation of comments sections. In particular, I remember thinking that the opening of comments at Kevin Drum's then-site, CalPundit, changed things rather a lot.
This deserves explication. Does Jacob think that opening a comment section changed my actual blogging? Or did the blogging remain the same but the mere existence of raucous commenters changed things? If the latter, why not just ignore the comments? If the former, how?
I've heard this general complaint many times, and I've never really understood it. My own view of comments is that they don't exist mainly for my benefit, or even for my readers' benefit, but for my commenters' benefit. In the same way that blogging gave me a platform to mouth off in public that I otherwise wouldn't have gotten, I figure that comment sections give an entirely different group of people the same opportunity. So I'm happy to provide it, even if it often gets out of hand. It's not like anyone's holding a gun to our heads and forcing us to read them, after all. (And anyway, the comment section here has improved considerably over the past couple of years thanks to my steely and implacable moderators. Thanks guys!)
On a more general note, Jacob's post reminds me that I've always been a little puzzled by the number of times readers have told me that I've "changed" thanks to something or other. When I opened comments. When I started accepting ads. When I moved to the Washington Monthly. When I moved to MoJo. Etc. For a variety of reasons, it's unlikely in the extreme that any of these events changed anything about my writing at all, but people sure think they do with fair regularity. I don't doubt that my writing has evolved since I started doing this six years ago, but I very much doubt that there was any particular event that's been responsible for it. More likely it was just six years of writing and learning and getting progressively more annoyed with the modern Republican Party.
But let's combine both these topics into one. Old timers: what do you say? Has my blogging changed substantially since the early days? How? Naturally, I urge you to leave your observations in comments.
UPDATE: Jacob responds.
I've been reading you regularly since the CalPundit days and I haven't noticed any significant change in substance and tone. You were interesting and informed then and now.
Well, since you've only been blogging for six years you can't use the excuse that "9/11 changed everything."
I've only been a regular reader/commenter for two years or so, but over that time your writing has evolved, but not your maddeningly reasonable tone, or your infuriating moderate-ness. Over the same time, the comments have, on average, grown more civil.
(And yes, I've contributed my share of incivility in the past but I'm now in recovery from what future specialists will no doubt refer to as eTourette's.)
But getting back to the original point: Levy's full of crap. "Changed things considerably" is, as you say, way too vague, and he's just playing coy with "...one of which I won't tell you..."
And thanks, Kevin, for giving us all a place to mouth off.
I agree with Jeff S. I've been reading you since the Calpundit days. It was nice knowing there was a like-minded "liberal" just down the street from me in the O.C.
Yes, sometimes you're maddingly "reasonable." But that's commendable when some on the "progressive" side go off the rails.
Like the attacks from the left before Obama has even taken office. Yes, I want universal health care and I'd sure like to see some high-ranking Bushies (including the Chimp himself) frog marched over using the Constitution for a throw rug in Abu Gonzalez den and what I conservatively believe to be war crimes under international law.
Until then, I'll keep my powder dry.
I too have been reading (and commenting) since CalPundit -- I think even since there was a different logo, although this may just be senility -- and I do think there has been a change in tone, although not to something necessarily better or worse. About the best description I can come up with is that it's broader; it's no longer a guy's opinion being expressed to a fairly limited group of regular readers, but rather more of a commentator's column that will be read by an audience of many thousands and will be linked to and referenced by other columnists big and small. It's a little more careful, a little more fact-based (and -checked), a little more "establishment." I don't think it's less opinionated -- and one wouldn't want it to be -- but the opinions are little more grounded and secure.
And as to ads, having been in the business in a small way, let me observe for the newbies' sake that ads once were seen as the holy grail and the wellspring of cyberspace: they were good, and indeed they have fulfilled at least some of their promise. That they're annoying, well, duh; they're ads. And they make money, which, despite the fact that all economic laws were repealed by the dot-com boom and the entire world changed on 9/11, is still required to do mundane things like buy and run servers.
I've been reading since the Catpundit - er, Calpundit days, but you had already opened comments there when I started reading. Since I've been reading, your blogging hasn't changed substantially, at least not that I've noticed.
one of which I won't tell you
I wonder why?
In the past five years, I haven't noticed much, if any, change in Kevin's posts. Sometimes his opinions on an issue change, but most thinking people experience an evolution of opinion after they noodle things for a while. Kevin's a pretty introspective guy and almost always appears open to considering a range of ideas on a topic.
I'm sorry the majority of commenters, including me, don't posses these same qualities most of the time.
By the way. I'm not "annoyed" with the modern Republican Party. I'm thoroughly disgusted. It's more of a criminal enterprise than a political party.
Been reading since CalPundit. You're still you, near as I can tell.
Moaners about the decline of civility in the blogosphere (who rarely cite examples) usually seem to mean the decline of civility in comments sections themselves. What they seem to be saying is, if you take the universe of blogs (decent! civil!) and then add in all these nasty commenters, the resulting blogosphere now includes a new, indecent, incivil element. The bloggers themselves may be just as sweet and kind as ever, but their work is besmirched by being associated with nasty commenters.
It's kind of bullshit anyway. (Such language!) Back in the '90s, it was a bit more difficult to build and find a cheap host for a personal web page, and a lot of those who did tended to be academics, who write in the soothing, reasonable cadences of professors over coffee. We all know, though, that there was plenty of profanity and trollery on sites that blogLuddites apparently did not read.
I would guess that the main thing making the blogosphere coarser was Blogger, which allowed anyone to start a blog. That, and the probability that Mr. Levy just reads a lot more online than he used to.
I react the same way I do when people say TV programming used to be more decent. Sure, I guess. I also used to have 5 channels to watch. Now I have a hundred. And if I never want to see a breast or hear a curse word, I can stick to Discovery Channel or whatever. That will not, however, appease those who become upset at "indecency" on television, because, somewhere, in the ether, those breasts, those curses are still out there.
I've been reading (hardly ever commenting -- but I like to read the comments) since the very early Calpundit days and I haven't noticed any change. A good thing, btw.
Like kc and many of the above I have been visiting you since near the beginning. No dramatic changes in you, though I would hope that all people grow over time and I assume you have.
For me the comments 1) give me more and sometimes better info than you, 2) allow me to give voice to ideas I have been nurturing, 3) subject such ideas to near instant evaluation by others who are none too shy to point out flaws, 4) provide much entertainment (I miss Al and Charles and many others whose names slip me).
In that vein, my personal poli-blog reading tends to skew toward blogs that have a vibrant comment section. The old Whiskey Bar and Intel-Dump (before WP) were favorites largely due to the wonderful commenter communities.
Did Jacob Levy get his feelings hurt in a blog comment section?
I've been reading since CalPundit and I also attended one your Farmers Market soirees.
It was amusing that there was an "A" table. I haven't noticed an appreciable change. I still enjoy this place and in general, I think comments sections are an integral piece of the whole blogging/internet dynamic.
Comment sections are generally reflections of the main blogger, and the readership (s)he attracts. I prefer comment sections with somewhat longer and thoughtful comments, but not not overlong and/or highly academic treatises. Atrios' comment threads are unreadable to me as they are tiny stream-of-consciousness snippets, while DeLong's tend to the academic.
Kevin's comment threads strike a good balance generally, with the odd amusing troll stopping in. Steve Benen at the old haunt also usually gets a nice mix too.
I go back to the CalPundit days. I don't think your writing style has changed. However, like a lot of bloggers, your choice of topics seems to have evolved.
I think in the old days, you picked out topics that interested you and didn't feel any compulsion to address the big news of the day if it didn't interest you.
That was something I loved about blogs back then - if you read 2 posts from five different bloggers, you probably read about nine different things. Now, those same 10 posts probably cover three or four topics.
Much to your credit, you've kept much closer to the original eclectic approach that all the bloggers had.
I don't think this was a reaction to adding comments or accepting ads or moving from site to site. I really think it is a sign of a medium evolving.
Liberal/progressives, though, need to keep an eye on the phenomenon, because it could lead to the sort of insular thinking that has hurt the Republicans so much over the past five years.
"Has my blogging changed substantially since the early days?"
With you since virtually day 1 and my answer to the question echos other long timers above - no.
reader since the CalPundit days. I think everyone else covered it.
my guess for the thing Levy doesn't want to mention -- Kos saying "F-ck them."
Read you since CalPundit days, comment infrequently.
Biggest change is that you used to have more California specific posts at that site than you do now.
Lately you've been getting into more economic wonkery, and a bit denser than before, but that's a sign of the times.
You also used to do more of your own graphs.
Your views and posts have evolved over time, as they do for any sentient being, but not in response to any change in the blog mechanics.
I used to subscribe to MoJo but their immediate and constant re-up attempts pissed me off. I signed up for a year and got my first of many "URGENT" resubscribe letters before receiving my first issue. Same experience for my brother. It's a great magazine, but neither one of us re-upped. Can't they wait at least 6 months?
I'm surprised and impressed by all the readers going back to Kevin's CalPundit days. I, of course, am also one of them. And other than a (slightly) lessened focus on California issues, Kevin's writing, focus, emphasis, and political beliefs haven't changed, AFAIK. He HAS grown a tiny bit more shrill, to my ever-lovin' enjoyment.
I've been reading you since Cal PUndit... Can't remember if you had comments or not when I started. I followed you to Washington Monthly, and you did change a little, gave up cat Friday. I cheered when you brought the cats back, cried when you lost one, and smiled at the new kitty. I couldn't figure out what happened when you were no longer at WM... then saw where another blogger linked to something you wrote and Wa La... found you here. Don't think you have changed any more than the rest of us have after the progressively terrible years with Bush. Quite frankly, I am much more "liberal" than I was after eight years of Bush...
And ya, I love Cat Fridays.
It's Friday, goddamnit, where're the kitties?
I think he has it exactly backwards. It's the lack of comments that has hurt the blogosphere, allowing certain cites to serve solely as echo chambers for viewers of a particular political stripe. Cass Sunstein raised this years ago in Republic.com
Kevin, you've been a different guy ever since... Domino came on board!
I've been reading you, Kevin, since back in the CalPundit days and it's my opinion that you have manifested no particularly significant changes. Sure, your arena has grown and, most likely, so have you in some ways. But you still have that voice of sweet moderate reason and that not-quite-maddening tendency to pull your punches ever so slightly.
And those other guys, the bloggers who don't allow comments, are just the people who, in olden times, were content to share their brilliance in bathroom mirror monologues, where never was heard a discouraging word.
Feel better now?
If I visit the site less now, it's only because I hate the look and design, which is not your fault and has nothing to do with content, which so far as I can tell has not changed. Sometimes it seems like you've posted less often than you used to but I think that's just me getting annoyed with scrolling past all the ads and extraneous stuff to get down to the next post. No longer having the Haloscan comments in separate window sucks too and adds to the small annoyance factor. Still, a daily read that's as good as ever.
I remember finding Calpundit and thinking, more or less, here's a guy with a somewhat rare tendency not to let the passions of any moment get him overheated.
I still feel that way about this blog, and I use it as a gut check whenever I'm feeling a little too pedantic about my own views. It's an invaluable service, and again, a somewhat rare temperment for a pundit.
Another CalPundit veteran here.
The people who keep whining "You've changed!" have some personal axe to grind and are upset that you won't help them grind it.
That said, you don't discuss how badly Al Gore was treated by the press nearly enough. ;-)
Kevin,
I've also been a reader since the CalPundit days, and an infrequent commenter. IMHO, when CalPundit became Political Animal, you tightened up your style and focus, and became less California-centric. That was understandable as you were now being paid to blog and had a "national" stage to do so. The last few months at Washington Monthly, I felt that you had gotten into a bit of a rut and needed a change. I think the move to MoJo has been good for you; I hope that it's worked out well for you, too. And I thank you for your writing, analyses, charts, cat pictures, and "annoying" reasonableness. Keep on keeping on.
In regards to comments: it's one of the few places in today's world where people can voice their opinion/viewpoint to a relatively wide audience. Sometimes the anonymity of it propels some people to trollish behavior, but those people usually get slapped down by the regulars. I don't see why anyone would NOT want comments on a blog. That seems very undemocratic to me...
I tend to prefer to read blogs with comments, although I wish more blogs would do a bit of troll clean up. Comments add so much to topics because most times there are people who are much closer to the source and have information that expands the original post topic.
Where comments fail is when they turn into cheerleading echo chambers, lacking in any diversity of opinion. DKos and Redstate come to mind...
I find that comment sections are a direct reflection on the maturity and intelligence level of the blog. You can tell most everything you need to know about a blog based on the comments.
This is such a timely post/thread--I'm a grad student in Communication and am working on a political communication research paper on new technologies and our national political discourse. Part of what I'm researching is how the ability to "tailor" our media/political news intake (i.e., I'm a progressive so stick mainly to left-leaning news sites and blogs) has effected our political discourse.
The data for this research are blog postings and comments from across the political spectrum (Reactionary, Conservative, Liberal and Radical). I'm looking at comment threads about Palin, campaign media coverage and the economic crisis from Little Green Footballs, Powerline, Washington Monthly and Democratic Underground. I've been pleasantly surprised to see that the lefty blogs tend to be more civil--I suppose it's not THAT much of a surprise, though. :)
My main concern with our increased ability to tailor our news sources is that it creates siloed echo chambers whereby progressives construct realities that are completely at odds with the realities constructed by conservatives. How does our national discourse suffer as a result of having no common ground as a starting point for discussion across the political ideological spectrum? (Although I have very high hopes that the discourse will improve with Obama.)
At any rate, I appreciate your writing, Kevin, in that it is rational and thoughtful, and I think it does allow for healthy discourse.
I've been reading you since Calpundit but honestly, only for a few months before you switched. There has been a little bit of a change, and I will describe it as best I can.
At Calpundit and the first WM days, you seemed to blog mostly about the big furor of the day. If it was Rathergate, then you wrote about Rathergate. There were other subjects too, but generally you seemed quite happy to contribute a technocrat's/lay expert's view of a given topic -- hence the graphs, for example.
At WM you settled into a fairly typical Bush outrage of the kind that Benen traffics in, only less shrill. There were a lot of different fronts for this dissent, so you used them to express yourself. In 2008 you've been rather more aloof, not as immersed in the campaign or Bush per se. When all of your blog colleagues are blogging about e.g. Palin or something, you'd be more likely to not write about that and write about long-term gasoline prices instead.
So, there you have it. I think if you checked it statistically, there's been a noticeable decline in the number of posts per week. You seem a little distracted lately. I think Bush bores you to tears and the campaign didn't engage you quite as much as your peers. I think you're waiting for something of substance to engage you -- Obama's great but he's all talk so far, necessarily. In other words, you're waiting for Obama to stumble or otherwise be tested so that the discourse has things in it that both are new and matter directly (campaign things are always indirect). The posts have been as intelligent as always, but not quite as passionate or (I think) as frequent.
Well, I was reading (and commenting) back in Calpundit times (with a different handle). So I don't remember a time without comments.
But I do think there was at least some change in attitude.
During the run-up to the Iraq war, Fall 2002, there was a regular "provocation of the week" (mobile bio labs! Uranik from Turkey! Aluminum tubes!), each announced loudly early in the week, debunked quietly by the end of the week.
But then in early 2003, it was time to either support or oppose...and the response was lukewarm, cautious support for the invasion. My guess is that a decade of Iraq demonization was fighting against six months of implausible hype, and the "well, if the president says so..." won out.
But after six months or so after the invasion, it was very clear that we had all been sold a bill of goods, and I think at that point the tone changed.
Perhaps you can file that under "increasing disgust at the modern republican party", but I think I speak for many when I say that I'll never trust that pack of murderous bozos again.
"...the decline of civility and decency in the blogosphere...
Yeah...um, sorry about that. A dirty stinking chickenhawk will set me off every time.
Been reading ya since 2005, your writing is easy to read even on complex issues (except for that peak oil stint you went on). I have always considered your blog(s) and comment sections as free continued education (good lord do I ever need it!).
One thing's changed: you're now more famous as a name than as a blogger. You turn up third in Google hits for "Kevin Drum," the top two of course to Washington Monthly.
Old timers: what do you say?
Nope. Been reading you since before the Iraq war. Gotta be pushing seven years now or maybe more. You've always been a voice of sanity featuring -- for my money, at least -- one of the easiest-to-read prose styles I've found in the 'sphere.
An English teacher's response. If Kevin's writing hadn't improved in six years of blogging, there'd be something wrong. Writing x thousand words a week will do it for you every time. Oh, and reading helps, too. - Ted
Well, Kevin, there is something that kept me (and all these other folks) trailing along after you through each change in location. I guess it is thoughtfulness. I have always enjoyed that you will attack class warfare issues and feminist issues that I think don't come too naturally to you - and aren't always appreciated by your readers - but you think they matter so you dive in.
Regarding commenters - I am so so glad you got moderators in. I love Digby with an abiding passion, but whenever I venture into her comments section I am really sorry. You don't need much moderation to keep comments sections interesting and readable, but you really do need some. Digby is a wonderful, thoughtful, smart writer, and yet her commenters (too many of them) are brutish, short sighted, and stupid. So now I think commenters are only a reflection of the blogger if there is moderation.
Regarding loss of civility: people who say that never spent much time on Usenet.
Comments? I don't need no stinkin' comments.
I'm here for the kittie pix.
Nope -- no change. And a good thing, too.
Moreover, except for the occasional troll-sighting, the comments on this blog are among the most civilized and thoughtful to be found on the web.
For that, we can all be grateful to one another.
Speaking of trolls (we were, weren't we?) has anyone heard from Norman lately? Did he go down with that Arizona Senator?
One day comments may reasonably be a Ph.d thesis. You may have originated cat blogging, but there were comments long before you opened them up.
I think you have a better comment section than many -- quite frequently I actually learn a great deal from the comment section -- and often -- no offense -- much more than I learn from you.
Contrast that with Duncan Black. Duncan on any conceivable scale is certainly smarter than you, and quite often his 1-2 line posts are point like a knife to the heart of the matter. But his comment section is the pits. Just a craptastic collection of barflys cheering other on, adding nothing of value, and rigorously ensuring that no dissent is allowed to be heard.
Dissent. Added content. Respect for others. All of this adds value to a blog. Does it change the blogger? How can it not?
The vast majority of the time, a "troll" is a person we disagree with, and nothing more. Instead we have a need to other and dehumanize that person -- it's mostly an indication that we've lost the argument. A "concern troll" is even worse, a person who must shut up right now. If your moderators, crappy as they are, useless as they are, were to enforce one rule, it would be to timeout the "troll spotters" because they add nothing of value, and I would think are in complete opposition to the founders and principles of MoJo.
See, it used to be in our liberal sphere, that we appreciated dissent.
"Question Authority" was once our cry.
Gotta run,
Yes, you've changed - You've gotten even better!
I've been reading you since your Calpundit days, but as others have reported, it was after you allowed comments. You are still maddeningly moderate sometimes, but you always were. Your opinions are very informed and always have been. I even stuck with you through the primaries as a Hillary supporter. I can't say that about all blogs. Jacob Levy doesn't know what he's talking about. You might be slightly less casual, but essentially the same.
Naaaah. You haven't changed since I started reading you some time in 2004 - can't have been long after the switch to WM; I remember a link to CalPundit from Lt. Smash's site though.
Maybe you're becoming more regular national pundit material, but then - peeps are paying you for that I guess.
The cats have changed, though. Or a cat, at least. Sadlily. And happily.
(Whatever happened to Smash, anyone knows? He got pretty GOP-hackish as time went by, but he did stand up for me a couple of times in his comment section, telling the hard core "my way or the high way"-types to bugger off and have a civil debate instead. Kind'a miss him)
I started reading WM after KD's change of heart over the invasion of Iraq and well before the 2004 election. I have always valued his perspective as a thoughtful wonk. My sense is that Kevin Drum's writing and pacing have always been good; His voice hasn't changed all that much. His thinking has evolved--which is good; He can learn from experience. Sometimes the topics in which he is interested are not my current interest (then I say, oh, KDs in a rut); other times he is full of enthusiasm for the topics that interest me most.
His comments threads are significantly better than most comments threads I've seen. Comments sections do not have to be uncivil. In fact, I first got hooked on WM's comment threads because so many comments were witty and well-written. They made me LOL. I learned from them, and my own thinking evolved.
One of the revelations for me from reading a variety of comments sections, is that a significant number of Americans confuse thinking and bullying. The only way they can express an opinion is mean-spirited, inarticulate, name-calling, egocentric, and ignorant. It has made me value the calm and reasonable voice all the more.
So Kevin Drum opening a comments section is responsible for the decline of civility in the blogosphere, huh? Has Jacob Levy ever ventured onto Usenet?
Post updated with a reply.
well the move to mojo has certainly changed the look of your posts. you no longer look like an official blogger, but rather a teenager sitting in his mother's basement in his underwear.
your commenters have gotten dumber not the old-timers but you are a big enough name to attract the blog swarms that were unleashed in 04 and especially 08. Us Deaniacs may have had some off days but those prObama kids were so committed to spreading the talking points they came across as complete idiots.
Who has time to read comments?
Yes, why can't we be nicer to dear old David Broder?
Have Jake venture over to BartCop or ask someone about Media Whores Online before he makes judgements about civility.
And have him talk to me about civility after I've seen another 20-something getting around on an Army pegleg, but make sure he's got his smelling salts and hanky handy.