Chris Bertram & Jeremy Stangroom

Dear Chris,

If you read some of the coverage which blogging receives in the media, it is clear that many people think that it represents a new, important form of democratic expression; that it marks a fundamental shift in power away from a media dominated by vested interests to one which empowers the individual. For example, John Naughton, writing in the Observer , claimed that what is riveting about the blog of Salam Pax, the Baghdad Blogger, “is how it reaches places that ordinary journalism cannot touch. ... For example, he wrote an extraordinary account of a friend's experience of having the family home raided by US liberators. It provided a vivid illustration of why the American adventure in Iraq is doomed. And nothing like it has appeared – still – in the mainstream media.”

It is not inconceivable that blogging will turn out to be just as important as its advocates suppose (though it is a somewhat salutary thought that the daily readership of the Sun – a UK tabloid newspaper – dwarfs the numbers of visitors which most blogs receive in a year). However, what is striking is that there is little analysis in the mainstream media as to whether this would be entirely a good thing.

There are a number of ways that one might criticise the blogging phenomenon. For example, one could point to the dubious quality of perhaps ninety-five percent of what is found in the blogosphere; for every Salam Pax there are, of course, a dozen “emo kids” who use their blogs to tell the world about the pain of adolescence. However, what I want to focus on here is the possibility that blogs tend to encourage a certain conformity of thought or groupthink .

There are two things about blogs which make groupthink likely. The first is that blogs are partisan ; there is no requirement that they should reflect a diverse range of opinion about particular topics. The second is that people tend to read those blogs which most closely reflect their own beliefs and values. Add these two things together, and the conditions are ripe for the emergence of blogs as communities based on “pure confluences of interest” (to borrow Gordon Graham's phrase).

Evidence? Over the last month there have been thirty-five separate postings at Crooked Timber , an academic blog comprising sixteen different people, which have as their main topic the Bush administration and/or its activities. None of them has been positive. In contrast, the mass grave uncovered in Iraq in the middle of October has received not one mention.

Should we be worried about this kind of partiality? I think we should.

All the best,

Jeremy

 

Dear Jeremy,

You are, of course, right to be sceptical about some of the more extreme claims that blog-enthusiasts make about the phenomenon. Like any medium – paper, the printing press, television – blogs are only as good as their content. Some of that content is execrable; but much of it is not. Blogs can be a useful tool in stimulating debate on specialist topics (there are politics blogs, arts blogs, philosophy blogs, urban design blogs, gardening blogs and so on) and sometimes can serve to correct mistakes made by “bid media”. As a technology they can also be used for a variety of different purposes: course blogs can change the way lecturers interact with their students; authors can use blogs to communicate with their readers and to revise or develop points they make in their books, and so on.

And blogging can be a lot of fun. I've been blogging for a couple of years now and have developed new contacts and friends, have read books I'd never have come across otherwise, and so on.

You compare the readership of blogs to that of the Sun newspaper. The Sun isn't the place I would look first for intellectual stimulation: I'd be inclined to reach for a copy of the New Statesman or Prospect first. I'm reasonably confident that many more people read Crooked Timber worldwide than either of those journals and sometimes (just sometimes) our material is a lot better than theirs.

You mention the phenomenon of “groupthink” and cite Crooked Timber as evidence for your claim. I have to say I think that your charge is misplaced. Crooked Timber is a blog run by a diverse group of both academics and non-academics. Our members span five nationalities and five countries of residence. But we are liberal in our political opinions and over half of us are resident in the US: hardly surprising that we post a lot on US politics in the run-up to the most important American election of recent times. Still, in the month of September, the blog carried 170 posts on a wide variety of topics including film, fiction, the Middle East, China , philosophy, problems of rational choice, children's books, parenting, the Enlightenment ... I could go on.

You write about “confluences of interest”, an idea that Gordon Graham seems to have borrowed from Cass Sunstein. But this actually neglects the extent to which people of different ideological provenance read and comment on other people's blogs. I first discovered blogging via the US conservative Instapundit and have developed friendly relations with people like the libertarian Natalie Solent and the English conservative Iain Murray ( The Edge of England's Sword ). I often read blogs such as Harry's Place (liberal but pro-war), and The Volokh Conspiracy (a US conservative blog which Crooked Timber probably links to more than any other). And, of course, I drop in from time to time at your own Butterflies and Wheels , even though its Voltairean rationalism is somewhat at variance with my own, more Rousseauian sensibility!

In short, there's a great deal of diversity and a considerable amount of communication among folk with widely differing views: the “blogosphere” may have its share of dross, but it can also be an exciting global public square.

With best wishes,

Chris

 

Dear Chris,

I agree that specialist blogs can be useful – Panda's Thumb , for example, does an excellent job of combating “intelligent design”' nonsense – and it is undoubtedly the case that blogging can be a lot of fun.

But you are more sanguine than I about dross; and also about the potential for a kind of blog “groupthink”. Let's take the example of Crooked Timber again. You say that it is a blog run by a diverse group of academics and non-academics. Fair enough, though it must be said that its non-academics are decidedly academic! However, it is interesting that you go on to say “but we are liberal in our political opinions.” Crooked Timber 's diversity then does not extend so far as to include non-liberals? This is a problem, I think. It explains why nobody has anything good to say about George Bush. It explains why one might imagine from reading Crooked Timber that only idiots and the morally bankrupt would support Bush's “war against terrorism”. And it explains why events like the Beslan massacre receive scant attention in the postings of the Timberites.

The significant point is that this kind of partiality is not only a Crooked Timber phenomenon. Indeed, Chris, you yourself have complained about the fact that pro-war bloggers remain suspiciously silent about events which do not suit the pro-war case (Najaf, for example). I agree with you! But it is a blogging problem. Blogging breeds entrenched positions; there is no editorial requirement for balance. Here, for example, is philosopher Brian Leiter talking on his blog about people he disagrees with:

[O]ne of the decidedly weird aspects of the blogosphere is discovering that one is being denounced as “ignorant” or “stupid” by noxious mediocrities, individuals of no discernible accomplishment or intelligence. ... Have these people no critical distance from themselves, no sense of their own limitations, no perspective on how out of their depth they are?

Heady stuff, I'm sure you'll agree. Maybe you'll just dismiss this as an example of the kind of dross which is characteristic of some parts of the blogosphere. But then the question is how much dross before one considers that maybe blogging isn't such a good thing after all?

If you read the Guardian newspaper, you'll find that most of the time it pursues what it sees – erroneously – as being a liberal-left agenda. But just occasionally it'll throw up a surprise; it'll print something which departs from its editorial line. But you can read Crooked Timber, or The Leiter Reports, or Normblog, or Conservative Commentary, and, on particular issues, you'll never be surprised; you'll know, in advance, the line which will be taken. Do you not find this disturbing at all?

All the best,

Jeremy

 

Dear Jeremy,

I have to say that I'm rather surprised by your response. All strands of opinion are represented across the blog world and, as I mentioned in my last email, people of widely differing political views read and comment on one another's blogs. You didn't address that question but rather raised the fact that the contributors to just one such project share broadly similar politics to one another. There's hardly anything strange about that! Why should Crooked Timber or the Volokh Conspiracy strive to be representative of the political spectrum? Why should we aim at compressive news coverage? And why is it to be deplored that every one of our contributors takes a dim view of the politics of George W Bush?

I'm also unimpressed by your transparent attempt to get me to be critical of Brian Leiter. Leiter has a point. There are people who write blogs – just as there are people in the off-line world – who express ill-considered opinions on topics where they have no expertise. Your own blog, Butterflies and Wheels , is fiercely critical of idiocies by “Creation Scientists” and the like (and rightly so). I'd be reluctant to characterise your attitude to such people as a case of intolerance of disagreement as such. You shouldn't thus characterise what Leiter wrote.

In any case, you greatly exaggerate the extent to which blogs like Crooked Timber express a uniform view. As I conceded, we do indeed all think that George W Bush is a deplorable politician with disastrous policies. But on many other issues – the politics of the Middle East , the operas of Richard Wagner, evolutionary psychology (to name but three off the top of my head) – we differ amongst ourselves (sometimes quite sharply). You write of never being surprised by the positions we take on important issues. Maybe your antennae are so sophisticated that you are especially good at sniffing out our thoughts in advance! But I'm constantly surprised by things my colleagues and collaborators say: think Harry Brighouse on school vouchers for example.

Finally, I rather regret the fact that while our exchange is supposed to be about the pros and cons of blogging, you've chosen to pursue some pet peeves about one specific project with which I happen to be involved. Naturally, I've felt an obligation to respond to what you've written about that project, but even if your complaints about it were fully justified (which they are not) that wouldn't necessarily tell us much about the broader phenomenon.

With best wishes,

Chris

 

Dear Chris,

Well, I can't say I'm really surprised by your response, but you have certainly slaughtered whole battalions of straw-men, so well done on that!

Let's clear up some misunderstandings. You say that I write of “never being surprised by the positions we take on important issues”. That's wrong. I wrote of never being surprised by the positions which certain blogs take on particular issues. The difference is crucial, as you'll appreciate. And, of course, I chose the word “particular” for precisely the reason that you indicate.

You talk of my “transparent attempt” to get you to be critical of Brian Leiter. Frankly, that's just nonsense. I didn't want to suggest that you necessarily approved of Leiter's style, so I indicated that maybe you would just think it characteristic of the dross which you accept that one finds in the world of blogs. I've got to say, though, that I think it instructive that you weren't willing to condemn it.

You also miss the point which the Leiter quote illustrates. You say “Leiter has a point”. The fact that he has a point isn't the point! Of course entrenched positions are sometimes correct. That isn't what is at stake here. What is at stake is whether entrenched positions are likely on the whole to generate more heat than light. My argument is that when a whole medium is characterised by entrenched positions then you tend to get heat not light. The fact that Butterflies and Wheels might contribute to the heat is neither here nor there. It is part of the blogging phenomenon, therefore it suffers from the same problems.

I think we're largely talking across each other here. Your argument seems to be – though I might be wrong about this – that we shouldn't worry too much that blogs tend to be partisan, because people's reading habits don't straightforwardly follow their political and ideological outlooks. Of course, this is true for some people; I read Conservative Commentary, for example. But, as a general claim, I don't buy it. First, there are systematic differences between the kinds of people who comment on liberal blogs and the kinds of people who comment on non-liberal blogs; just check out the comments threads. Second, there is a whole group of more casual readers who will regularly look at maybe one or two blogs. They will not tend to choose to read material which they systematically disagree with (that's not how it works in the mainstream media, for example).

Let me finish with someone else's words. They are talking about the relationship between left-wing and right-wing blogs:

The left and right hemiblogospheres are presently linked – if at all – by a corpus callosum of profound mutual contempt. Countless linky axons of aggravation transmit negative affect side to side. I won't bother demonstrating this obvious fact with links. ... And so, in the interest of entente – or at least to preclude the need for split-brain surgery to prevent the equivalent of a interwebs-wide grand mal epileptic seizure, as the storm moves left to right and back – I propose ... a contest! Awards! For outstanding and meritorious achievements in the field of contempt.

This is John Holbo. On Crooked Timber . Yesterday.

All the best,

Jeremy

 

Dear Jeremy,

I'm afraid that I find your picture of pure attitudinising from entrenched positions to be a rather misleading one. Sure, there is plenty of that – just as there is in the traditional media, as it happens. And perhaps you have a point that entrenchment has been more marked of late. But that is hardly surprising against the background of a US Presidential election.

I'd like to finish on a positive note – rather than trading further recriminations with you – by pointing to ways in which blogs complement and enhance wider debate. Take, for example, the recent study in the Lancet , which was headlined in the Guardian and elsewhere as “100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq ”. Naturally this led to outrage among supporters of the war in the blogosphere and the traditional media who wrote critiques. Some of those critiques were well-informed and others were not.

I think the next move in the debate was remarkable. A group of bloggers including the Australian Tim Lambert, Chris Lightfoot and Crooked Timber 's Daniel Davies went to the Lancet report and painstakingly critiqued the critics, demonstrating that their understanding and deployment of key statistical concepts was defective and that they had misrepresented the report. Moreover, they did this not just on their own blogs, but, in some cases, on the comment threads of their opponents ( Harry's Place and Chicago Boyz ). So much for lack of dialogue across the political divide. I don't recall having seen analysis of such high quality in the newspapers or broadcast media which – on this issue – more resembled your picture of the blogosphere than the blogosphere did itself!

As I said in my first email to you, I'm not going to pretend that there isn't a lot of dross on blogs. But then there's a lot of dross everywhere. But there's also a reservoir of very well-informed and intelligent people who deploy their expertise for free and to the public's benefit. Lambert, Lightfoot and Davies are all excellent examples of that.

With best wishes,

Chris

 

Jeremy Stangroom is editor of The Philosophers' Magazine website (www.philosophers.co.uk) and co-founder of Butterflies and Wheels (www.butterfliesandwheels.com)

Chris Bertram is reader in social and political philosophy and head of philosophy at the Univeristy of Bristol and a member of the Crooked Timber blog (www.crookedtimber.org)

Comment on this article here.