seanbonner: Inside Story - Pt 4 - Questions for L.A. Bloggers

May 29, 2004

Inside Story - Pt 4 - Questions for L.A. Bloggers

Questions from the Audience-

The audience is asking about trolls and how to deal. Cathy says there are not a lot of personal attacks from trolls which no one seems to agree with. Charles points out right away that he's attacked every day. LA Voice quotes her as saying: "I think it's amazing how few comments are really nasty and abusive - people could put anything, and they don't. I've seen horrible things written about me on like Front Page, but not on my own site. There seems to be a general code of honor, that people generally don't sign on to attack you.." I'm wondering right about now if she's ever read a blog, because I think anyone who has, knows that it's one of the biggest problems people have, personal attacks from commenters, and the reason many sites like BoingBoing stopped allowing comments all together.

Audience member "Virginia" points out that comments are not representative of readers since most readers do not post comments and wants to know how bloggers keep from scaring new readers away because they might think the comments are 100% of the kind of people reading it.

Roger discusses that on some things he writes people love him, other things like gay marriage (he's in support) cause an uproar. He doesn't mind the attacks and negative comments because that's what is out there and he'd rather know about it than not. Thinks blogging is only going to keep growing (obviously I agree with that).

"Q" means question from the audience from here on out. Click "more" for the rest:

Q: What the crap "Little Green Footballs" means, and where the name came from. Charles says nowhere, just something he's used for a long time for different things, but doesn't explain.

Q: Do you think getting popular changes you and will you please try not to change. Charles says he has always been surprised by the popularity and tries to stay grounded. Kevin says when he moved to Washington Monthly half the people told him he became more liberal and the other half thought he sold out to the man. Mickey says he has to watch some of his comments because of the Microsoft connection and at some point a corp is going to get sued because of a bloggers comments and that will be the end of that. Roger says when he got linked by Glenn for blogging live when Arnold got elected was a massive turning point, traffic and readership went through the roof. Keeps trying to get that kind of reaction.

Q: How many hours a day do you blog? Mickey says 8 hours a day, but late at night and he's getting burned out. Moxie says an hour or two a night, and frequently not every day. Roger - constantly. His computer is on and he's home so whenever something comes up he posts but hard to say because he's a furious multitasker and it all runs together. Charles 5-6 hours a day but likewise is doing other things at the same time. Matt - most time is spent reading, is expected to post several times a day.

This is really turning into a discussion about what is blogging and what bloggers do and not about politics, which would fit in with my comment earlier that most people here don't seem to know what blogs are.

Q: This guy says he's a pro journalist who gets 60K readers in print and 0 hits on his blog. Wants to know how people get hits. Matt, and several people point out the key, links. This guy refused to say his URL, so maybe that's part of the reason no one reads his site.

Q: Luke Ford asks is blogging has gotten anyone laid. Cathy tries to brush this off right away but not before several people can say "Only Tony Pierce."

Q: BoiFromTroy asks about comment spam and PR flacks? Charles just deleted 50 comments today. Says you can tell the people pushing wares and are easy to avoid.

Q: Guy asking about Nick Denton and his "race to the bottom" by sexing things up. Guess at least someone does know what a blog is but no one seems to care.

BTW, Caryn has been trying to ask a question since this began and keeps getting skipped over. Cathy seems to be calling on audience members by name in many cases so perhaps she's favoring friends? I don't know, maybe not. Bingo... she just got picked.

Q: Caryn goes back to and wants to talk about the opening statement that the blogosphere leans right of center, she says the blogs she reads lean left and because it's inherently open to people talking about what they want and it's open for all sides to voice their opinion, left and right and isn't slated to either side. The media isn't showing coffins returning from Iraq but bloggers are, that would seem to be on the liberal side, no?

Several people around us were nodding as Caryn was asking this, and at least Matt Welch was as well, but Cathy looks really pissed and ends it right there. She said something like - OK, let's get a "real question", and went onto someone else. I'm not sure why she skipped this question, maybe because it was questioning her directly? This is one of those things that you can't get away with on a blog, you make a statement, you get called on it, you have to deal with it, but on a panel, you can just skip the question and move on. Follow up: 6 different people came up to us on the way out and said Caryn should have demanded that her question was answered, so it's good to know that other people noticed the gloss over.

Q: Why are there no good blogs on LA politics? Matt says "why haven't you started one?"

Q: Is rage against the press a driving force? Yes. Charles says that's the #1 reasons for him. Media trying to downplay Islamic threat, he wants to point it out.

- I just missed that question, something about the LA Times. Roger says their would be nothing wrong with LAT if there was another paper, since they are the only one the suck. It's amusing how much everyone, on all sides, know the LAT is crap.

Q: Travis Smith asks about blogger burnout and wants to know if people think they will keep it up, or will stop. Cathy says she only started recently anyway so... which makes me wonder why she's on the panel? Nothing against her, but since this is clearly turning into a discussion about blogging in general rather than politics, surely they are a ton of other LA people who have been doing this for a long time and might have had more insight? Other people saying they don't see stopping anytime soon.

Mickey says video blogging will change things, I don't think so. Jeff Jarvis recently said something about people who are interesting writers aren't exactly interesting on camera and I think that's exactly the point. Moxie says when it stops being interesting, she's out.

Q: Cathy a asks final question - do you find people think you are different in real life than on your blog? Uh....

Audience final question - Andrew Breitbart says the word "blogger" is lame and demeaning and wants to know why people don't call themselves journalist? Kevin says he love it, Moxie says she hates it and is a writer using blogging as the tool. I'm guessing he asked this because Drudge wishes he and the site were considered real journalists, when they clearly aren't. Bloggers a different than journalists, and that is a very good thing, but that's a huge rant for another time.

On to Part 5!

Posted by sean on May 29, 2004 10:19 PM | View blog reactions
Previous Entry: Inside Story - Pt 3 - L.A. Bloggers on Politics
Next Entry: Inside Story - Pt 5 - My Take

Comments

Caryn didn't ask a question. She gave a long boring incoherent speech. She took up way too much time than was appropriate for that situation. That's why Cathy moved on to those who had questions, not just angry alternative speeches that bored the audience.

Posted by: LukeFord on May 30, 2004 11:41 AM

Luke - I just read that comment on your site and was going to post it here but looks like you beat me to it. Obviously from reading Cathy and your sites it's clear you guys are friends so of course you would come to her defense but you seem to be speaking for everyone else and I don't think you can do that. You might have thought it was boring, but several people thanked her for asking it so your feelings aren't the same as everyone else's. Judging from reactions, the audience did lean right for the most part, but not entirely.

Since you didn't get the question, she was asking Cathy why she thought the blogosphere leaned right of center and her "alternative speech" was simply some examples that point to the contrary.

Posted by: sean bonner on May 30, 2004 12:02 PM

I apologize if my question wasn't as eloquent as "hey, how many times do you blog a day" but I thought that it would be important to shed light on an obvious bias on the panel. It was apparent that most of the people on the panel (and in the audience) were conservatives and I feel that it's important during political discussions to have a balance. In the first panel about Hollywood, everyone was talking about the fact that there were no conservative products but then with the political panel it was just announced "most blogs lean towards the right." That flippant, and untrue, comment needed to be addressed. Sometimes a question that isn't literal and is a statement is intended to bring about discussion. Isn't that what blogs do? You make a statement and respond? Cathy's obvious distaste for anything not right was inappropriate for a political panel and her abrupt change in conversation only perputuates the stereotype that conservatives only like their own and have no tolerance for anyone else's opinions. It was a BLOG AND POLITICS panel...I didn't need to go to some discussion about blogs in general. It's all just a really sad indication of how people are too afraid to actually discuss politics in public. I do lean towards the left but am no Democrat, and really liked hearing about what Charles was saying about his site. Too bad he was only answering inane questions that don't really matter.

Anyway, this is another long and incoherent rant again to you lukemoore but still valid. Cathy's choice to make it invalid was completely unprofessional for a panel moderator.

Posted by: Caryn on May 30, 2004 12:43 PM

And on more thing...it didn't exactly bore the audience when I had at least three people right in front of me nodding in agreement, one woman saying "thank you for saying that it was needed" and people coming up to me afterwards upset that my comment was dismissed. So, just because YOU don't like what someone has to say doesn't mean they can't say it.

Posted by: Caryn on May 30, 2004 12:45 PM

Caryn, I'm sorry you felt your question wasn't answered, but actually you spent so long outlining your position statement that you forgot to include a question at the end of it. We kept waiting, but it never came. I've seen this happen so often during Q&A sessions at speaker events that I'd meant to ask people to please keep their questions in the form of actual questions, preferably short and direct, but that was something I forgot to do. Eventually a moderator has to move on, especially when there are so many people in attendance who want to ask questions of the panelists, rather than address the opinions of an audience member.

Posted by: Cathy Seipp on May 30, 2004 03:02 PM

Cathy - thank you for responding. I guess the reason why I didn't ask an outright question is because I attend (and am on) many art-related panel discussions. More often than not, people state opposition or an opinion on the subject and that, in turn, creates dialogue. I guess I assumed it would be the same thing for a political discussion, especially considering that it had diverted from politics so dramatically. I wanted to hear what people had to say about politics in blogging and the different sides of the coin. I didn't feel that was happening. Also, in the Hollywood panel people were commenting and not asking direct questions and the panel responded to that. Why would the political one be different?

Posted by: Caryn on May 30, 2004 03:44 PM

Caryn,

I thought you were given more than enough time to make your point. And, frankly, I didn't think your long windined "question" was very thought provoking.

Blogs are actually more liberal than conservative? *Yawn* You're opinon of the political slant of blogs is dependent on the blogs you read. *Duh* Blogs are inherently more liberal because people can write whatever they like? *Time for the next question*

Posted by: whaledog on May 30, 2004 06:03 PM

Cathy - Thanks for responding. All I was trying to say was for a panel called "L.A. Bloggers Take On Politics and the Media" it was a shame that a comment actually about blogging and politics was brushed over, when questions like "how many hours a day do you blog," "how do you get hits" and "how do you deal with comment spam and PR flacks" were given full consideration.

Posted by: sean bonner on May 30, 2004 06:03 PM

Whaledog - you said:

"You're opinon of the political slant of blogs is dependent on the blogs you read. *Duh* "

Exactly, so why should the host of the panel be able to state that the blogosphere leans right of center to a room full of people who don't know what blogs are without having that fact pointed out?

Posted by: sean bonner on May 30, 2004 06:07 PM

"Exactly, so why should the host of the panel be able to state that the blogosphere leans right of center to a room full of people who don't know what blogs are without having that fact pointed out?"

After Caryn made a point of correcting her, what was left for the panel to say? "Yes, Cathy, you're absolutely correct, your opinon of the blogsphere will be greatly affected by the blogs you read." Caryn was given ample opportunity to make her point (and correct Cathy). She just didn't do a very good job of leaving space for an interesting discussion.

However, I do agree that the panel discussion was too general. I would have like to see more focus.

(But, I'm going to guess that you and I will disagree whether inviting people to comment on Caryn's "question" would have created a more focused discussion.)

Posted by: whaledog on May 30, 2004 06:15 PM

I could've opened up my fly at the panel, wanked myself in full view of the crowd, and I can guarantee you that it didn't exactly bore the audience when I had at least three people right in front of me nodding in agreement, one woman saying "thank you for saying that it was needed" and people coming up to me afterwards upset that my comment was dismissed.

Posted by: Luke Ford on May 30, 2004 06:32 PM

Sigh. Forgot to add: "And I apologize in advance for Luke." Also, thanks to everyone who came to these panels, especially the live-bloggers.

Posted by: Cathy Seipp on May 30, 2004 07:46 PM

If I can add my two cents to the original question - to which political spectrum the blogosphere tilts. I generally find it rightish, especially with the big players, but it dawned on me today it's those on the left getting "absorbed" by the big media. Mickey with Slate, Drum with WM and Oliver Willis with Media Matters. The money's falling onto the left side of the fence, so far.

Posted by: wil on May 31, 2004 08:46 PM