Wankers

I'm starting to think about a feature I've been asked to write about how the print journalist's job description is evolving. In a very, very short time a great many print hacks have had to learn about everything from podcasts, recording studios, video production to blogging, responding to comments and being part of that dreaded bloody conversation thing. Alors... I came across this quote which perfectly sums up the clash of old and new mindsets - I've added links to make it a wee bit more understandable.

I do get the sense that the Guardian’s columnists are simply not used to this kind of medium, they are not used to getting feedback in public where they can’t just hit ‘delete’ to get rid of a pesky critic.

Suw .... likened such old school thinking to this:

It’s like them walking into a pub, making their pronouncements and then walking out. Later, they are shocked to find out that everyone is calling them a wanker.

Nowt new. I just love the last two sentences. Perfect.

Comments

[Hsien Lei]

I swear I didn't call you a wanker behind your back.

[Graham]

I'm sure you could come up with worse then wanker :)

[Hugh Fraser]

Graham you probably should to talk to Will Lewis, the editorial manager at the Telegraph.

He was quoted recently saying that in the "new " telegraph"

“There’ll be no old media versus new media, them and us”.

[Linda]

Hi Graham,

Interesting stuff as ever.

The venom that is unleashed on sites such as CiF can be extraordinary though can't it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1860316,00.html

I mean Christ, a mother raises a point that it can be hell with kids on public transport and she basically gets told that she should put up with it because she should have known it would be difficult 'before she squeezed one out' and that actually children aren't welcome in restaurants or shops either.

Sometimes surely if someone wants to call you a wanker, you can let them get on with it - but who says you have to reply and prolong a "debate" at that level?

You know when you have done stuff for CiF, can you describe what it's like when the comments, inevitably, aren't always what you anticipate? I know it's not realistic that everyone is going to say: "Goodness what a wonderful and thought-provoking post!" But some of that stuff in the link I've included above, has gotta hurt, hasn't it?

In my career as a journalist, I've been punched, spat at and called scum.* But I'm not so sure that I'd want to write for a site that invited such "feedback."

* And I've told my mum she really shouldn't over react.

[Hsien Lei]

Such "feedback" gives bloggers a better feel for the pulse of readers. Although I haven't received such negative comments as Ms. Williams, I've gotten some that annoyed the crap out of me. I take that as an opportunity to think from a different angle, consider the positions, then address the issue in another post. It's endless writing fodder and fun.

I would never turn off the comments on my blogs and, in fact, welcome the more contentious ones. Perhaps that's difference between "new media" and "old media". Those of us who are more involved in new media are more open to disagreement.

[Linda]

Just to say I agree with most of what's said in Hsien's comment above - but that personally I don't know how illuminating the pulse of certain readers is - if all they are out to do is make mischief or call you a ****. You can insert your own word there, I didn't want to say wanker again.

[Hsien Lei]

Linda, I'll say wanker for you again. ;)

The name calling is ridiculous but for popular blogs like CiF, it's to be expected. I just ignore them as do most everyone else it seems! And, actually, if I ever got a worthless comment like that, I'd just delete them. I suspect the people managing CiF haven't got the time or inclination to do so.

[Mallika Basu]

Eek. Just had a look at Linda's link and am very astounded. Venomous indeed. I thought I was right to delete my asshole boss's idiot comment of "but your cooking is terrible" on my chicken curry post. But clearly I am going to have to wear oversized sunglasses, grow thick skin and bristles if my baby blog is to survive the onslaught of vicious curry-hating wankers (I just can't get enough of the word).

On the other hand, isn't it wonderful to be loathed? And I ain't no journalist...

[Linda]

I've just had this message from a friend of mine who has had some cracking comments on her pieces on CiF:

Linda, CiF is not scary you wally!As for the comments after each piece - just imagine they are written in green ink.

[Graham]

Hugh - good idea. The Telegraph was my first thought too what with the launch of starship telepgraph and their ambitious mulitimedia schedule. I'll contact him this week.

As for Cif and venom. I've said this elsewhere - I think if I'd come to cif with zero blogging experience I'd have been a wee bit surprised at some of the reactions. But, like Suw's analogy, you'd half expect some of this stuff down the pub. It's not the way I would ever reply in a comments field, but we're all different. I don't mind the abuse, but I won't reply to it. More than happy to reply to folk who further the discussion though. Just wish I had more time to write for cif. Maybe soon.

FWIW, I believe the Guardian will experiment a bit mroe with ways of running cif debate. The whole anonymous comment thing is a difficult one. I liken it to the ancient Roman lion pit. Cif contributors are in the pit and the anonymous audience are baying for blood in the stalls. The lion pit disappeared as society became more civilised.

[Linda]

Hi Graham, I thought this was interesting re where comments on blogs can land people:

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1920100,00.html

Then there's Ellie Levenson on CiF and how she feels about the comments:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ellie_levenson/2006/10/rules_of_engagement.html