I learned a few things from Judith Miller’s speech at the OSM launch on Wednesday. More precisely I relearned something important from Judith’s affect at one particular moment in her remarks. She was describing what it was like to be in jail without internet connection or even much access to newspapers. Friends and family would bring her printouts of news articles and blog posts, which they would hold up to the dividing glass in the visitor room for her to read. It was like in a B-movie.
Some of those blog posts, she said, were attacks on her private life and on her family from people who quite obviously would know little or nothing about it. At that point, I thought I detected tears welling up in Judith’s eyes. I felt stricken, suddenly recalling a derisive post I had written about her several weeks ago, implying she had gone to jail in a weight-loss scheme. Of course, prison is no spa and I damn well knew it. That post may have been mild compared to some, but it was still out of line. And, no, I’m not linking to it – and please don’t Google it – because my point is we all owe each other a lot more courtesy. I’m fully aware of Truman’s immortal words about heat and the kitchen, but there are limits.
Recently my OSM colleagues and I have been subjected to all kinds of criticism, much of it well intentioned and warranted. But a fair amount has been surprisingly personal, bordering on the abusive. (My wife and I were about to allow our precocious daughter to have an internet connection, but now we think we’ll postpone it.) Some of this criticism came from people my colleagues and I thought were friends who did not even give us the common courtesy of querying us on why we did a certain thing. Besides being rude, that’s not very good reporting from an MSM or blog perspective.
Of course, we at OSM are making all kinds of mistakes. This is something brand new and we’re going to be flopping around for some time, much like a kid learning to ride a bicycle. And even when we learn to ride, we’re going to run into plenty of brick walls. But frankly I’ve been rather upset by some of the more personal criticisms and listening to Judith reminded me of what my words could do. I don’t know if she read them at the time through that glass partition. I didn’t have the guts to ask her and, if she had, she was too gracious to say so. But in the future I’m going to try to be more careful about how I phrase things when they impinge on the personal. You don’t have to be a Buddhist to see the karma in that.
UPDATE: In the opposite direction, in the chaos of recent events (with 2000 emails in my inbox), I missed this post. My heartfelt thanks.
And the funniest guy around puts it all in perspective.
MORE: My thanks for all the input on OSM. More to come from our side and from me personally over the weekend.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
75 Comments
1. Davidsonman:Dear Roger,
This post demonstrates pretty extraordinary grace and humility. Not many bloggers (indeed, not many people) would admit to a slight transgression from long ago that no one would remember. One of the sad aspects of being interested in public affairs is the volume of personal venom so many folks employ. Thanks for your reminder that we can disagree vigorously wihtout personal attacks.
Nov 18, 2005 - 6:33 am 2. Jamie Irons:Roger,
I agree with Davidsonman above that your admission shows extraordinary grace and humility; I am not at all surprised by that, as I think those are characteristic of you, and are part of the reason I have always been a regular vivitor at your site. (OK, that and the free popcorn!)
You wrote:
But frankly I’ve been rather upset by some of the more personal criticisms…
For some reason I followed a link to the left side of the blogosphere that was related to OSM’s launch (I think it had to do with the branding issue), and I was truly appalled at what I found there. Some of the posters I “recognized.” Whether ordinary envy or something else motivated them, I do not know, but it was not pretty.
In posting around the blogosphere since 9/11 I have tried, as my mom used to say, to keep a civil tongue in my head. At times I’m sure I have failed at that, as at everything else. But if we are going to advance our ideas, ordinary polite behavior, in my opinion, goes a long way.
Jamie Irons
Nov 18, 2005 - 6:52 am 3. Charlie (Colorado):The one who amazes me is Ann Althouse. I suppose it’d be sexist to suggest she look into hormone replacement therapy, but cripes. When Dennis the Pissant, er, Peasant says to take a break, you’re obsessing about OSM, it’s time to wonder.
(PS. I’ll be damned… Mac Dictionary knows the word “pissant.”)
Nov 18, 2005 - 7:02 am 4. dougf:But frankly I’ve been rather upset by some of the more personal criticisms and listening to Judith reminded me of what my words could do.–Roger
I hope that any ‘criticism’ of ever make of your fine efforts is always aimed only at possible enhancements of your desired product.
Frankly I don’t know how you and others put up with the nasty, childish, abusive, rantings in which some on the net seem to feel it is their right to indulge. Like Gaul, humanity seems to be devided into 3 parts. The Good;The Bad;And The Ugly. Seems like the ugly part is currently inflicting itself upon you.
All my best wishes for success in your new venture, and were I you I would just ignore anything from anyone who cannot adopt some variety of civil tone. Life is too short to be insulted by the boorish.
Nov 18, 2005 - 7:03 am 5. reliapundit - the astute blogger:Roger;
You “IS” all class, and it is ALL 1st.
BTW: I came away with the same feeling.
And the same resolution: cut-out the venom ESPECIALLY when it impinges on the personal.
Passionate expression, even when it’s negative, doesn’t have to be mean-spirited, or crudely expressed. An error I have made on occasion, most often against institutions (the MSM.NYTIMES the LEFT, etc) but sometimes against PERSONS – including THE BLOGFATHER!
Sometimes this was done for shock value – too “break through the clutter;” regardless: I too will try to eliminate this from my repertoire.
ALSO: I AGREE: Ms. Miller was IMPRESSIVE in many ways.
All the Best,
And Good Luck – knock on wood – with OSM!
(PS: DON’T BEAT UP YIOURSELF: I can not recall an instance when you have been unfair or vitirolic.)
Nov 18, 2005 - 7:17 am 6. David:Yeah Ann has just earned my “Blogs I will never read again” award (of course I suspect she could care less). I was truly shoocked and appalled by her childish and crude rantings. I just do not understand the venom. Why should she (and Steven Den Beste) give such a rats behind? It is really kind of sad. I don’t know and in a grand sense don’t care if OSM suceeds or not. But I am happy you got a couple of venture capitalist to cough up on what could be an interesting venture.
On a personal level I wish you, Charles, et al the best of luck amd ,and you make the capitalist a load of money.
By the way, Charles did not bring Dan Rather down, he did it by his own little self (with help from Charles).
Nov 18, 2005 - 7:28 am 7. Pat Curley:Yes, Althouse seems to feel that OSM is her bete noir. I don’t get it completely, to be frank. She raised some reasonable points back in July, about things that I had noticed in the initial offers. But many of those points were resolved, to my satisfaction at least, in the final contracts. Which, I strongly suspect, Ann never saw.
It always seems to me that if a friend comes up with an idea for a company and you don’t believe in it, you don’t get involved, but you do wish them well. She seems determined to be proven right on this.
I’ve been present at the birth of several companies and I know it never goes smoothly at first.
The important thing becomes whether the people in charge tackle the problems that arise or let them fester. I have confidence the problems will be ironed out.
Nov 18, 2005 - 7:29 am 8. Charlie (Colorado):Like Gaul, humanity seems to be devided into 3 parts. The Good;The Bad;And The Ugly.
That may be the most amazing mix of a classical and a pop-culture reference in one sentence I’ve ever seen in my life.
Nov 18, 2005 - 7:35 am 9. ahem:Right on, as usual. It’s easy to forget how powerful this medium is. As for your OSM project, keep going. Let nothing stop you. More than ever, we need balanced news sources.
It’s too easy for people to criticize from the sidelines, where it’s safe. Your industry and nerve are to be applauded. Unfortunately, change seems to bring out either the best or the worst in people. Those who succeed have been known to lose some friends along the way. Who knows why?
You’re a pioneer. So get in there and see what the possibilities are. Good luck!
Nov 18, 2005 - 7:36 am 10. Silicon valley Jim:You’re a man of rare compassion; I’m sure just about everybody who’s ever posted comments here wishes you well. I certainly do. Your grace, humility, and courtesy continue to set an example for me to follow.
I’ll continue to read Ann Althouse on occasion, but I’m truly puzzled by her behavior as regards OSM. She’s been well wide of the mark on a couple of occasions in the past (I remember a pretty clueless post about how Russ Feingold would be a great Presidential candidate), but, in general, she’s one of the better bloggers around.
Nov 18, 2005 - 7:41 am 11. Syl:I’m sorry it’s happening to you, Roger. But when Bush-hate erupted into the open it was the end of the illusion of civil discourse. And everything became personal.
Everyone is judged only by whether their actions and words help or hurt Bush. Nothing else matters.
Just keep carrying on, Roger. We know your principles and are damn proud of you.
Nov 18, 2005 - 7:43 am 12. Lola:I’ve been keeping my mouth shut about this, especially when I saw some of the criticism. I’ll admit to being taken aback, even as it filled in the picture a bit as to why I wasn’t seeing certain folks in the comments section any longer.
I’ll just say, you keep up the good work. Do the best that you can to the extent of your ability. We all learn from our experiences, good or bad. It’s okay to fail, as long as you make an honest effort in the endeavor; mistakes can teach us invaluable lessons in life. Of course, I wish the very best for OSM.
Nov 18, 2005 - 8:05 am 13. Michael Babbitt:One of the things I admire most about you, Roger, and why I visit your site often, is your humanity and willingness to be responsible; you are able to respond with maturity and humility to criticism and show that you learn from experience. Wow, what a concept, considering the meanness and inelegence of poliitical discourse we see displayed so often. Being mean is now considered a virtue by many — as long as you know you’re ‘right’.
Thanks. I wish you the best with OSM.
Nov 18, 2005 - 8:06 am 14. neil:Well, boo, hoo, Roger. You might remember that when Huffington Post was about to launch, and shortly after it did, there was no end of criticism about what a stupid idea it was, how it would never work, etc, etc, etc. Instead of writing weepy posts about how mean everyone was being, they worked through the criticism and won over a lot of their critics — they earned their respect.
On the other hand, here we have the CEO of this new company whimpering about how people he thought was his friends aren’t believing in him enough, when the flagship website is suffering from severe neglect.
You might have noticed that the blogosphere is a very critical place where respect has to be earned and no subjects are sacrosanct. I really hope you noticed that — in fact, I thought it was part of the idea behind this whole New Media thing. But it seems that you really don’t believe in it. Instead of learning from your criticism you are insisting that it stop, this minute. This ’slime-and-defend’ approach has some pretty unfavorable parallels in modern American politics, if you ask me.
Now, about this constructive criticism. I’m a nobody, but here are a few things you can fix to improve OSM.org right now:
* Get people’s names right. Right now you have posts linking to Tyler Cowan and Mike Schmitt.
* Get dates right. Your ‘Top Stories’ page features articles dated Thursday, November 16 and Wednesday, November 15 (as well as others dated correctly, Thursday, November 17). This looks very bad.
I hope you accept this advice as constructive criticism and not as “abusive remarks.”
Nov 18, 2005 - 8:24 am 15. David Thomson:I still prefer the Pajamas Media name. Oh well, I guess I can live with OSM. Nobody in their right mind should hope for anything but a successful outcome. Good luck.
Nov 18, 2005 - 8:33 am 16. Bostonian:Neil,
You’ve just insultingly inferred a whole lot of things about the inside of someone else’s head.
I took Roger’s post to be a simple statement that he’d learned something and wanted to share it, not a plea for mercy from “mean” people.
Incidentally, you qualify as mean-spirited in my book. … as long as we’re getting personal.
Nov 18, 2005 - 8:45 am 17. neil:If I was mean-spirited, I would’ve told Roger where he could stuff his website, not how he could improve his website.
Nov 18, 2005 - 9:10 am 18. dougf:Now, about this constructive criticism. I’m a nobody–Neil
Well apart from agreeing with Bostonian about the ‘mean-spirited’ part, I do have to admit however that you seem to have got the self-analysis bit down pretty well.
It’s a good first step.
Nov 18, 2005 - 9:31 am 19. neil:Oh, elitism? Is that one of OSM’s values? What exactly are you supposed to be offering that the MSM doesn’t?
Nov 18, 2005 - 9:35 am 20. Bostonian:neil: “What exactly are you supposed to be offering that the MSM doesn’t?”
Honesty and easy checking of facts. Don’t like it? Don’t visit.
***
It’s a bit much for you to insist that you mean well when you devoted most of your diatribe to
bashing a guy for reasons you put into his head.
Nov 18, 2005 - 10:01 am 21. owl:Cry me a river Roger.
And try addressing something substantive. Like the fact your site is making stuff up.
And this is interesting.
As is this.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Rogergate. Ohhh for the good old days when we could get three or four sensible posts a day, a lot of wonderful comments (notice how many have fled, or at least don’t come around so often) and you were doing what you do best: writing books and making movies. Pure Hubris Mr. Simon. Reluctant CEO. Nemesis is always around the corner. Your fawning, as opposed to real, friends aside. (Guess that IPO launch ain’t looking so hot.)
Nov 18, 2005 - 10:21 am 22. owl:Charlie,
“When Dennis the Pissant, er, Peasant says to take a break, you’re obsessing about OSM, it’s time to wonder.”
That you didn’t detect that Dennis was joking, and in fact complimenting her, means you’ve lost your sense of humor my good man.
Nov 18, 2005 - 10:25 am 23. Godzilla:Just stay above the fray, and I’m sure you have every intention of doing that. I’ve started using the OSM site as my portal to get to the other blogs (all the ones I read are reachable through the bloglist combination box on the OSM home page). I’m doing this because I want to have it registered that I clicked to OSM. Or is this necessary? Does OSM still get a hit if you go directly to one of the blogs?
Nov 18, 2005 - 10:35 am 24. Bostonian:Owl:
Well, *someone* is clearly lying.
Nov 18, 2005 - 10:38 am 25. WichitaBoy:Roger,
My sincere wishes for the very best results in your new venture.
Nov 18, 2005 - 10:48 am 26. Charlie (Colorado):Owl — you think Dennis is joking? Not very well-informed, are you? Or just real suggestible, maybe.
In the mean time, in her most recent post about OSM, Ann links to Iowahawk making fun of the business model; her previous link to an OSM post was to Jeff Goldstein making fun of the principals; and then imputes “don’t talk about OSM” as the First Rule of OSM.
So, if have the list right, she:
Doesn’t like the front page. (Non disputandum est.)
Didn’t get the joke of Jeff’s “liveblogging”. (Maybe it was the broomstick up her ass making her uncomfortable. But getting mad about not getting the joke doesn’t help.)
Thinks their first day was not without flaws in execution. (Neither does Roger.)
Didn’t like their business model so didn’t sign up.(So, that’s fine. Nothing said she had to.)
Thinks Roger, Glenn Reynolds, and Charles Johnson “don’t quite get blogging”. (Twilight Zone music starts here.)
Thinks questioning that statement is defending OSM and claiming that Charles is “really good”. (Actually, I don’t like LGF much. But “doesn’t get blogging”? Ludicrous.)
Doesn’t like LGF’s commenters. (Me neither, that’s a big reason I don’t real LGF much. But who appointed her Inquisitor?)
Thinks the “First Rule of OSM” is not to cristicize OSM and proves it by linking to not one, but two posts making fun of OSM.
Thinks Dennis the Menace, er, Peasant suggesting she is obsessing, take some time off on the topic, it had helped him cope, was a joke. (Maybe it was. Pretty subtle joke, especially since Dennis did take a good while off commenting about OSM, saying it was becoming an unhealthy obsession for him.)
Nov 18, 2005 - 10:49 am 27. neil:Sycophants dismissing your critics as insignificant and petty.. now that’s _so_ Old Media.
If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. There are plenty of ass-kissers in Hollywood who are willing to tell you everything you want to hear and nothing more, but if you come to the blogosphere looking for that, you won’t end up satisfied.
And if that’s not what you want, Roger, then I would suggest you tell Bostonian that he can knock it off with the attack poodle act.
Nov 18, 2005 - 10:50 am 28. nopundit:Roger,
Congratulations on the launch. I wish I could have been there but a little thing called Katrina came through and nearly ripped my roof off. Not to mention the forced 45 day vacation I went on. Back to normal in 2007 for sure.
Regarding criticism vs. ad hominem attack: read Hugh Hewitt. I had an epiphany like yours about a year ago. I cannot remember the actual person being vilified far and wide in the center-right press and blogs, but it was a Democrat operative and he really uttered some wrongheaded stuff. Hugh Hewitt did what he always does: he invited him onto his radio program to defend his stance. The person accepted the invitation, and while eloquent, ended up still wrong. Hugh of course was aggressive, but cordial (as he always is).
Moral: every person is a future interviewee, or at least, a future acquaintance. Can you live with your present day hyperbole when that rendezvouz takes place?
Kenneth Greenlee
Nov 18, 2005 - 10:52 am 29. Bostonian:Neil,
“She”
And I don’t know Roger personally.
Nov 18, 2005 - 10:53 am 30. owl:Bostonian,
My money isn’t on the side that is being defensive. That posts a slick “cry me a river” defense. That deletes part of the record on their site to cover their tracks. That, in a hole, keeps digging instead of doing the blogger thing and owning up to screwing up. Hubris meets Nemesis equals huge portions of irony. I thought bloggers abhorred this kind of behavior. All those fawning over the man are not Roger’s friends. And all those fawning now and before are partly to blame for Roger’s great adventure (otherwise known as a trainwreck). If not for our fawning this get rich quick smoke and mirrors ponzi like absolutely banal stab a good many on the way up adventure would never have been undertaken. IMHO
Friends act like Aristotle did towards Plato. (Though Plato was right.)
Nov 18, 2005 - 10:54 am 31. Bostonian:Owl,
1) The rewrite of “About Our Name”–was something scurrilous there that has now been mysteriously removed? What tracks were covered?
You hint but do not say. Out with it.
2) It still says that Christopher Lydon gave permission to use opensourcemedia.net, which is contradicted over at http://www.radioopensource.org/open-source-media-in-case-youre-confused/.
So someone is lying, as I noted. And that is serious. I don’t have any particular reason to believe radioopensource.org, though, a site with which I am entirely unfamiliar.
I await further developments with interest.
Nov 18, 2005 - 11:08 am 32. owl:Charlie-san
Maybe it was. Pretty subtle joke, especially since Dennis did take a good while off commenting about OSM, saying it was becoming an unhealthy obsession for him.”
When did Dennis, especially in the last few weeks, take time off from criticizing, parodying Pajamas/OSM? That is all he has done. And in the last six months the his Pajama entries have been his bread and butter.
Perhaps Roger will be deleting my comments soon so this might be our last exchange my good man. Being paranoid you say? CEO’s gotta think about the bottom line. He’s not our little Roger anymore. Though he probably wishes he were. I for one would be glad to have him back. (I can get AP links on my own and a number of blogrolls on my favorite sites are more than adequate for tooling around the blogosphere. As for helping the little blogger make bucks. Seems the dream kind of changed midcourse. IPO. IPO.) I’m thinking the venture capitalists can’t be too happy at the moment. All their money is going out, out, out and none is coming in.
Nov 18, 2005 - 11:11 am 33. Steven Mitchell:It appears to me that some people feel threatened by OSM. A few may even be projecting those fears. Where have we seen those tendencies before …
Nov 18, 2005 - 11:18 am 34. owl:Charlie,
Sorry about that last post. I had to sign back in and the top two thirds of my post was cut off inadvertantly. Thus it doesn’t make much sense. Instead of writing it all out again, includes the parts that are laudoatory towards you, I’ll leave for the record Dennis’s comment over at Ann’s:
“I think you’re starting to obsess about those guys. Take some time off, smell the roses, or whatever…
It’s worked for me.”
This strikes me as two by four over the head humor. Nothing subtle about it.
Nov 18, 2005 - 11:18 am 35. owl:Bosonian,
Dig around. About the rewrite. They had an explanation about their name that didn’t hold water. When the Open Source Media guys (the radio guys) sent them a letter (the letter you send before a lawyer sends a cease and desist letter) suddenly that page over at OSM went into lockdown mode. You had to have a password to get in. Their new explanation about their makes a claim that they know have permission granted to them by Mr. Lydon and company. Lydon says he has never heard back from Simon. Emails and Fedex letter notwithstanding. Everything has been done on the cheap. Including the site. They don’t seem to be getting very good lawyer advice either. Such is Hubris.
As for Steven Mitchell’s comment, which I assume was addressed towards me, what can I say. I’m sure I’m projecting and a few hundred other psychological activities are also taking place within my mind as I write this. But threatened by the OSM? It’s a trainwreck. I’m actually rather sad. But certainly not fawning and sycophantic and dismissive of real issues.
Nov 18, 2005 - 11:31 am 36. byrd:Why respond directly to the critics? (This is to Roger’s defenders, not Roger himself who, so far as I know, hasn’t responded to the critics.)
The best way (the only way) to shut them up is to be successful. If OSM works, Althouse will look like a petty little fool. If OSM fails, Althouse will look like a petty little seer.
None of the rest of this matters.
Nov 18, 2005 - 11:35 am 37. SJ:Since I’m posting here anonymously myself, it may seem hypocritical, but what I find most vile about the personal attacks and vitriol are that (aside from Ann Althouse) they usually come from anonymous posters. Even Dennis the Peasant doesn’t have the guts to identify himself. Yet they attack people who are putting their own reputations on the line. One wonders what these individuals employers/clients/colleagues would think of them if they saw the kind of obsessional hatred they spew. Let me put it this way, if I knew someone was a stalker, I wouldn’t go out on a date with him. I’d bet the same is true in the employment arena.
Nov 18, 2005 - 11:41 am 38. Knucklehead:Roger,
Good luck with the OSM venture!
Nov 18, 2005 - 11:43 am 39. Kathy from Austin:Roger that is a great post. I’m rooting for OSM (thank God for the name change!). Why not try to make a go of it? Entrepreneurship is what this country is based on, and it will forever mystify me why some wish failure on others. Break a leg and prove ‘em wrong!
The anonymity of the internet makes some–not all– otherwise civil people become attack dogs. It’s pretty outrageous and I see it more and more. You can barely read through the comments section on Iraq the Model anymore without wading through nasty vitriol. And let’s not even talk about the DU and Kos. It has become, unfortunately, personal for many bored, lonely and angry people.
Neil and Owl, why do you post here? It is surely your right (if Roger allows it) but you seem to wish for the worst outcome for Roger and seem hostile. What’s up with that?
Nov 18, 2005 - 11:49 am 40. Rick Ballard:Byrd,
Bravo (or brava, as the case may be). The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and the market will provde the only true critique.
I’ve always given more weight to the validity of specific criticism when I can identify the critic as having achieved some sort of success in the field where they are offering criticism. That’s very difficult to do when so many take the veil of anonymity.
The dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
Nov 18, 2005 - 11:59 am 41. Charlie (Colorado):Owl, the last post I saw of Dennis’s (I tired of his site fairly quickly) was one where he said he was going to stop moaning about PJM and get on with his life. If he didn’t, well, it’d seem the argument that he’s obsessing and so should know what it looks like seems even stronger, and the joke still escapes me.
Sorry I missed out on the praise part, though, it’s been a rough week otherwise.
Neil, it’s not that I think Ann is insignificant, it’s that her arguments on this topic seem to range from petty, to silly, to specious and fallacious. That’s not like Ann. I’m puzzled, and fascinated in a watching-a-train-wreck sort of fashion.
Nov 18, 2005 - 12:10 pm 42. Steven Mitchell:“As for Steven Mitchell’s comment, which I assume was addressed towards me…”
It was addressed broadly, but the bit dawg hollars.
Nov 18, 2005 - 12:11 pm 43. owl:“Neil and Owl, why do you post here? It is surely your right (if Roger allows it) but you seem to wish for the worst outcome for Roger and seem hostile. What’s up with that?”
I don’t think wanting Roger to let his supporters and fans in on the fact that he may have screwed up about naming his new company is wanting the worse for him. Or the blogosphere. Though you are right it may seem hostile to you. And the tone could be better. But face it. Everyone over here is in hunker down mode. Nor do I think that because he may have published a bald faced lie over at OSM that has bearing on the (possible) pending copyright battle and thinking that this may come back to haunt his reputation, and in the end that is what an artist has–besides their artifacts, is somehow wanting the worse outcome for the man. How hard is it to write a few sentences saying, “We’ve got a problem.” And we are most likely the ones who screwed up. Maybe not. But maybe. Here are some takes on the blogosphere with regards to this problem. Link. Link. Link. Instead this post. Not to mention the cryptic reference towards Dennis: “Some of this criticism came from people my colleagues and I thought were friends who did not even give us the common courtesy of querying us on why we did a certain thing. ” “A certain thing.” Anyway. I’ll leave now. Roger has been more than kind letting me have my say, inelegant though I have been. And Rick is right. We’ll all see. But might there not be method to hostility, feigned and otherwise, such as mine. As Charlie has said over at Ann’s, to paraphrase, it wouldn’t be a bad idea getting a CEO who knew something about business. A little hostility might just in the end wake some people up and give them a moment to smell the roses. For all you know I’m some Machiavellian, with method to his madness, deviously and doggedly on Roger’s side, or at least the side of his venture capitalists. Let us not forget: Other Peoples Money.
Nov 18, 2005 - 12:22 pm 44. owl:Charlie,
DtP, All Pajamas/OSM 24/7 for weeks and weeks and weeks. Makes Ann’s comments seem like a footnote, an ibid.
Steven,
Good one. I’ll be off now. Other moons to hollar at. Though I prefer baying, truth be told. Sorry to have crashed the pajama party. I’ll leave before being labelled a troll.
Nov 18, 2005 - 12:36 pm 45. Godzilla:Owl, the error dealing with OSM’s name acquisition, and an apology, has been posted in the OSM site’s Errors and Corrections page.
Nov 18, 2005 - 12:39 pm 46. neil:Kathy from Austin, I don’t think that OSM needs warm fuzzies from me to become a success, so I don’t see how you infer that I “wish for the worst outcome” for Roger from my constructive criticism; I could instead have kept my mouth shut and just watched the trainwreck. Some people actually believe that boilerplate about the virtues of the collaborative, critical, fact-checking blogosphere.
But if you take the madly paranoid approach that people should be clapping harder and telling you that you’re doing a heckuva job, instead of offering criticism, well, success will not find you that way.
Nov 18, 2005 - 12:46 pm 47. Godzilla:GREAT IDEA FOR THE OSM SITE…seriously. I looked for a way to contact OSM through the site, but as of yet there’s no email set up, other than the one for editorials. So I’m posting the idea here, and I’ll also duplicate it in an email to you personally. The idea is this:
Have a “Random Blog Spin” control. When the user clicks on it, they are randomly sent to one of the blogs in the top 25 list of bloggers or one of the blogs in the alphebetical list Sort of like a grab bag, where the user doesn’t know which blog they’ll get. Sort of like a grab bag that the user pulls a blog out of. The algorithm that does the selection should select the blogs randomly. This will widen readers’ exposure to the blogs on the list. For example, I have so many blogs that I link to now, that I don’t actively go looking for more to bookmark. This, however, would introduce me to blogs that I normally would not seek out, and possibly start to read regularly. And it does it in a painless way, simply clicking on the “Spin” control. Basically, the control just has to be a labeled button.
Nov 18, 2005 - 12:53 pm 48. tefta:Charlie (Colorado) offers the suggestion that “she (Ann Althouse) look into hormone replacement therapy … ” Bravo, Charles for this lesson in constructive criticism.
Nov 18, 2005 - 12:55 pm 49. Charlie (Colorado):Actually, Tefta, I said “I suppose it’d be sexist to suggest she [Ann Althouse] look into hormone replacement therapy, but cripes.” it was thus in the subjunctive mood, and not a serious suggestion.
Nice demonstration of how a quote out of context can change the meaning, however.
Nov 18, 2005 - 1:02 pm 50. SJ:Gee Neil, it’s been my experience that criticism that is meant to be constructive is most effective when it’s relayed in a cordial manner. It’s just basic human psychology. When you sound rude and hostile, even if your intentions are good, people react in kind, and don’t hear what you are trying to say. Take this as constructive criticism of your own posting style.
Nov 18, 2005 - 1:02 pm 51. Bert:I think your endeavor has high merit. \Oof course, we all have had to learn to walk before we could run. Keep up the good work and remember to be a duck (water flows off your back.
Semper Fi
Captain USMC Retired
Nov 18, 2005 - 1:02 pm 52. owl:Godzilla,
?
( I know, I know. I said I was out of here. But Godzilla directly addressed his post towards the owl. Now this should be my last post. Unless someone makes the same mistake again. Rogerites: Ignore the owl. )
Nov 18, 2005 - 1:04 pm 53. Charlie (Colorado):Godzilla, I rather like that suggestion about the blogger wheel-of-fortune thing. I wonder how hard it would be to do it topically. The sites might have to provide tagging….
Nov 18, 2005 - 1:06 pm 54. owl:Godzilla,
Agggh. Wrong link. Sorry. That was the fight half a day ago. But things haven’t gotten better. In any case the radio guys haven’t “relinquished” anything.
Nov 18, 2005 - 1:10 pm 55. Mark Poling:“Sycophants dismissing your critics as insignificant and petty.. now that’s _so_ Old Media.”
And tangential flaming meant to reinforce one’s own feelings of intellectual and moral superiority are _so_ UseNet.
Been there, done that, on green screens before WWW meant a damn thing. Nothing new here, folks, move along….
OTOH, new business models are always fun to watch.
I think at least part of the tidal forces bringing harsh words up onto the beaches it is the feeling that blogging should be an amateur sport. The Internet (ah, ARPAnet, I hardly knew ye) has always been a stronghold of libertarian, anarchist, inconoclastic, individualistic, pig-headed idealists. The whole idea of getting corporate with it still gives a lot of people (me included) the willies. (Anyone seen Ratatosk lately? He’s more old-school than me, by a bit…)
So, not too surprising, I think, that we’re seeing some disproportionate responses. In the spirit of Roger’s post, let’s cut everyone some slack, and try to leave the snark back in the dorm where it belongs, m’kay? A new medium’s got to grow up and pay the bills eventually.
Nov 18, 2005 - 1:56 pm 56. Kevin P:Roger:
It’s a travesty, a quaqmire, all is lost, Roger is no buisnessman. Snooze.
Roger, good luck. I hope the wrinkles are ironed out and that the future is good and profitable. As someone who has had a failed and a succesful buisness I applaud your courage and boldness. Could it fail? Of course. Either way you stepped up and put your ass on the line. Don’t let the anklebiters get you down.
Nov 18, 2005 - 2:08 pm 57. Godzilla:Roger, here is an example of what I mean about the Lucky Blog Spin. I jinned up an example using five blogs off the OSM site.
Blog Spin
This is bare bones, but I just wanted to show the concept, and all of the code is accessible if you read the source. The graphics can be better, but the code is good. I made the array seperate (as opposed to hardwiring into the switch statement), because the entire array could be used as an object all by itself (which gives it some additional properties, as opposed to just hard typing each page into the case statements within in the switch). Although that could be done, if desired, eliminating the array.
Nov 18, 2005 - 2:13 pm 58. Godzilla:Charlie, I missed the blogger wheel of fortune idea, though that sounds like what I’m talking about. I put up an example in an earlier post. The graphic is just a button in my example, so that definitely needs some sprucing up.
Nov 18, 2005 - 2:18 pm 59. Godzilla:Charlie, something tells me that the blogger Wheel of Fortune idea was just my Random Blog Spin, reworded. Initially I thought there had been a similar but distinct suggestion floating around, that I had missed.
Nov 18, 2005 - 2:23 pm 60. tefta:Charlie, think of it literary license to make a point. The discussion wasn’t about menopause and hormone replacement therapy, so what was it doing on a string about OSMtm? hmm?
Nov 18, 2005 - 3:31 pm 61. Kathy from Austin:Neil,
I guess it’s the way you come across. I’ll be the first to grant that unless you are a gifted writer, nuance is often lost with postings, e-mail, etc. But to SJ’s point, constructive criticism is one thing, but (apparent–could be “nuance”:) sniping and barking around the fringes is another. No one is asking you or Owl to stand up and clap. I suspect we are all adults here. But c’mon. These bloggers spend a lot of time researching, editing and posting their thoughts which we log on to read. That is time away from their day jobs, away from their families, etc. It also provides us the opportunity to have adult conversation around topics relevent to the day. I donate often to blogs (sorry, Roger, haven’t this one yet, but I’m a newbie here) because I think my entertainment and frankly, being informed outside of the MSM, is worth something. So if a group of folks want to figure out a way to make a buck for their labor, I say go for it. Hell, if they all become millionaires, I won’t feel so badly about not contributing to blogs I read regularly. Let’s give them a break and support outside the box thinking on what could become a new business model.
Nov 18, 2005 - 4:11 pm 62. Kathy from Austin:P.S. Charlie from Colorado and Godzilla are instructive in the definition of being supportive!
Nov 18, 2005 - 4:21 pm 63. Terrye:I have been reading Roger for some time now and I like him. He seems like a nice man.
I do think there is a lot of unnecessary and nasty personal attacks out there and it usually back fires on people.
I hope it works out for you Roger and if owl and neil don’t like it they don’t have to look at it.
Nov 18, 2005 - 4:24 pm 64. SJ:When Ann Althouse has a post from anonymous Dennis the Peasant (who I would love to see outed so that his CPA clients could find out about the derangement of the individual who prepares their tax returns!)in which he jokes about shooting Roger’s dog, I think things have gone way too far. These people sound like Peter Braunstein.
Nov 18, 2005 - 6:10 pm 65. vnjagvet:Entrepreneurs, by definition, are explorers in a new environment. Few succeed without significant mistakes even in well-funded ventures with significant underwriting capital.
Even the most successful did not necessarily have the best solution to the problem that they started to solve. Ford in automobiles, Microsoft in personal computer software are but two examples.
The successful are persistent in solving the problems uncovered in the beginning of the venture, surviving and managing through initial mistakes, and the flexibility to make quick changes to respond to market needs.
Roger has the courage to begin this ambitious project and the chutspa to expose himself and his venture to that new generation of critics and fellow pioneers, the denizens of the blogosphere.
I wish him well, but hope he doesn’t quit hosting his great blog which I have enjoyed for the past two years.
Nov 18, 2005 - 8:12 pm 66. Barry Dauphin:I wish you well on the venture, Roger. The more competition in the media business the better for the public. Given the interest you have shown in wanting people to articulate their biases rather them cover them up and pretending to be “objective”, some days are gonna be rougher than others. I’d second Jamie’s earlier post that ordinary, polite behavior can go a long way. Sometimes, however, its value is only revealed in the long run, not the short run.
Nov 18, 2005 - 8:59 pm 67. Charlie (Colorado):Charlie, think of it literary license to make a point. The discussion wasn’t about menopause and hormone replacement therapy, so what was it doing on a string about OSMtm? hmm?
Gee, tefta, think of it as literary license to make a point.
Nov 18, 2005 - 9:08 pm 68. Charlie (Colorado):Sorry, Godzilla, I just thought your idea was kind of neat and coined the “wheel of fortune” thing in my own fevered mind. I still think it’s neat.
Nov 18, 2005 - 9:10 pm 69. Buddy Larsen:Rick, re your use of the phrase “The dogs bark and the caravan moves on”–you did, I hope, get permission from the estate of Omar Khayyam (1048-1131)? If not, then you’re an evil, blood-engorged tic upon the scrotum of a pig, I’m afraid.
Nov 19, 2005 - 6:27 am 70. Barry Dauphin:Regarding internet use for younger kids (albeit precocious), having a library of CD ROMs might work in the meantime, as you & Sheryl will have control over content but she could have a kind of virtual internet expereince.
Nov 19, 2005 - 8:01 am 71. Beth:Hey Godzilla,
Can I use that code for a Blogspin at my own (non-OSM) site? I love that idea! (Although I dread inputting all the URLs I’d use!)
Roger,
Serious question. The big issue (most of) the critics have SEEMS to be that nobody “gets” it (admittedly, myself included, although I’m not taking a position as a critic nor a “cheerleader” at this early stage).
Are you Gawker Media/Nick Denton? Tech Central Station? I know you’re not trying to duplicate someone else’s business model, but telling us in plain language with some basic models with which to compare (i.e. Denton’s) about what we should expect to see would be helpful and would certainly garner more support.
Nov 19, 2005 - 10:54 am 72. Godzilla:Beth, sure you can use that code, if you want. The code (specifically the selectBlog function) will work with any blog. In your case you would just want to change the name of the blog array to something like BethBlogArray, or you could save on typing by calling it (and the other variables) something more cryptic and shorter. If you look at the code, you’ll see that when the button is clicked, the function selectBlog is called, and at that point the code takes over and does the job. That part only needs the relevant blogs for your site. Also, when you create the array, say you have 20 blogs you want to include in the spin, then you would substitute 20 for 5. The first element in an array has the index 0. In the switch function, you would have 20 case statements, case 0 to case 19. If it doesn’t work, you’ve made a typing error somewhere (this is common).
I suggest that first you get a bare bones blog spin working on a test web page, as per my example. Put the function in the html HEAD section like I did, and don’t forget to enclose it within the SCRIPT tags (but use lower case). Put the button within the BODY tags. Once you’ve got it working on your test page, consider the graphics that will accompany the button. I would suggest an image, either one you jin up or one that you get off the internet or from a software package like Art Explosion. Put this catchy image on the your test page, (I’d probably use Microsoft PhotoDraw to make a jpg that combines text and a graphic). Under that image put the button. Now you have a pleasing image and the selection button, and you can go live with it. Insert the code into your blog. For an off-line project, to be done at a leisurely pace, search the internet for a cooler looking button (they are available), or make your own up, and then use THAT button to select the selectBlog function. If you’re familiar with HTML, then you should be off and running on your own with this. If you’re not familiar with HTML (nothing to be ashamed about…in fact hating HTML is a personality plus…and I wouldn’t wish Javascript on my worst enemy), then I’ll provide specific help if you’d like.
Nov 19, 2005 - 12:21 pm 73. Godzilla:Roger, THERE IS A BUG IN THE OSM SITE. That was just to get your attention. This is the problem:
In Internet Explorer, when the user comes back to the OSM site after clicking to one of the 25 main contributers in the drop down list box, the list box item still has the focus. If the user attempts to scroll down the OSM page using the mousewheel (as would be typical), they will instead be whisked to another page in the list. This is unsatisfactory. This does not happen in Netscape Navigator, but most of the world uses IE.
To duplicate the problem (and assuming that you have IE on a Windows PC), click to one of the 25 contributers in the list, than go back to the OSM site and operate the mousewheel. You’ll find that you go to another site on the list.
Here is the fix:
OSM List Box
In the code, I only change three things:
1) removed the ONCHANGE attribute of the SELECT tag and added an ONCLICK attribute, which calls a function selectBlog(this.value). The value sent to the selectBlog function has blog url that was clicked by the user operating the list box. The problem with ONCHANGE is that when the list has the focus, just using the mousewheel causes ONCHANGE to kick in, sending the user to a page, which is unsatisfactory, as noted for the reason above.
2) in the selectBlog(blog) function I added error checking code to make sure that the function does nothing if “none” or “” is the value sent to it, which are the values assigned to the first two list items in the SELECT object.
3) in the SCRIPT tag, I change the type to “text/javascript”. This is important because the selectBlog function is working on text.
In the fix, you’ll notice that, when you come back to the list (after navigating to a page by clicking on one of the items), and then operate the mousewheel, that you will now no longer get sent to a web page. There is still the annoyance of scrolling with the mousewheel and not going anywhere (because the list still as the focus), but clicking to get out of the box is preferable to getting whisked to another page AND THEN figuring out what they have to do (click out of the box).
The normal expectation for a mousewheel movment is scrolling down a page, but a mousewheel will also scroll down a list in a list box, which is why using the ONCHANGE attribute is a bad idea in the case of your list box. ONCLICK is much better.
Nov 19, 2005 - 4:04 pm 74. Godzilla:Roger, scratch my last post. In fixing one problem, I created another. If, instead of leaving the list box, you actually wanted to use it again, you would have to click on it to drop down the list, which is a CLICK that will turn on ONCLICK and send the user back to the same page they’d just come back from. So my fix was great for someone leaving the box, but an extreme aggravation for anyone wanting to use the list again (they would have click out of the box and then go back to it). What is needed is a way to accomodate both actions without any due inconveniences.
I’ve come up with a fix for IE to fix this, but it results in a problem with Netscape Navigator.
Oh well. The fix here will involve browser incompatibility issues, and the code is not trivial, and I would be delving too deeply into the site’s mechanization to come up with the code. Sorry about this. Charles knows what he’s doing though, and he can code around the problem. Just make sure that he knows there is a problem with that list when using IE.
Nov 19, 2005 - 4:41 pm 75. Godzilla:Roger, making the list box on the OSM site compatible with both netscape and IE wasn’t that big of a deal after all. Here’s the fix:
The Fix
The selectBlog() function checks to see if the browser is IE, and if it is, it resets the SELECT object’s VALUE property to “none”. Now, when the user comes back to the OSM site, the list box will be in its initial state. The box will still have the focus, so the user must click out of the box, but they won’t be sent to another page if they operate the mousewheel, and THAT was what the problem was.
If the browser is Netscape, then the selectBlog() function only sends the user to the selected page. There was never a problem with netscape as far as the list box went.
Since the posts on this are spread out, here’s a short recap of the changes to the code:
1) remove the ONCHANGE from the SELECT object and added an ONCLICK function that calls the selectBlog() function.
2) change SCRIPT type to “text/javascript” because the selectBlog() function is working with text.
3) added the selectBlog() function, enclosed within SCRIPT tags in the HEAD section.
This change will make using the list box with IE much more user-friendly.
Nov 20, 2005 - 11:12 am