BuzzMachine

Disagree. Your definition is correct but there is a subsection of the blogosphere that consider themselves the “outsiders” that are “crashing the gates” of media, politics, government.

They choose to get involved, or only converse about media/politics/etc.

And when someone prints something they don’t like, many of them hurl invective and insults which hurts the legitimate criticism of the ones that try and argue reasonably.

It’s like Jayson Blair huriting all press credibillity.

Like it or not, bad apples spoiling the bunch is an apt metaphor for politicians, CEO’s, newspapers and bloggers in the blogosphere.

This will sound geeky perhaps, but here goes: “The blogosphere” is a socially constructed concept or identity, not necessarily a reality with that term attached to it. You’re exactly right, Jeff. There isn’t even a cohesive, unified “we” or “us” to it. Sure, there are trends, unifying characteristics, and other general aspects that can be applied loosely (or tightly) to certain segments of the blogging population, or maybe even to all of it, but we still have to realize that when we say “THE BLOGOSPHERE,” we actually mean something else – for example, we are implying a certain political bias, or a certain style of reporting, etc.

I don’t think it’s wrong to use the term “blogosphere.” I just think it’s naive to assume that everyone understands it to mean the same thing, or that all blogs somehow agree with one another or follow some mystical rules of physics that apply universally in some sort of collective entity.

These ramblings were brought to you by a grad student in history, hence the “socially constructed” thang. It’s a fascinating topic to me, though: the changing ways in which people perceive what’s happening to media and the sharing of ideas and information.

But Jeff, haven’t you yourself trumpeted the power of the blogosphere as an aggregator superior to that of individual critical voices? Seems to me that at times you like to play fast and loose with the definition of the new media, delighting in pointing out what the blogosphere is *not* when others attempt to define it as if you were a virtual Taoist sage. Which is totally cool with me (and probably befits you in your professorial aspect), as long as you acknowledge the possibility that the ‘sphere is both an individual and collective phenomenon. That of course is the beauty of the new media. When it needs to be about the many, it is about the many; when the individual voice is most important, that is what comes through instead. Naturally people will misunderstand it — especially those who are most threatened by its dynamism and ambiguity — but by now you should well know that these misunderstandings are as valid a part of the conversation as anything else.

In other words: welcome to the po-mo funhouse, Professor Jarvis!

The Richard Cohen episode seemed to be a peak of frustration by a lot of viewers who got annoyed when all the reruns and news reports showed the president’s little ‘my alter ego’ joke instead of the very raw remarks by Colbert, and that frustration caused a lot of people to direct their anger very volubly at Mr. Cohen for his put-down of the Colbert remarks.

While it doesn’t surprise me that he got lots of complaints, I am constantly surprised that anyone feels it necessary to talk ‘trash’ – which is almost always counterproductive. But then, I realize that letters to the editor and calls to congresspeople have a lot a crank content, too.

As Jeff says, it’s a collection of people and some of the world consists of cranks. But I see a lot of reference to the ‘blogosphere’ as a world of cranks being used to ward off criticism – by pundits who have earned the criticism. In Richard Cohen’s case, it did seem to produce what Jeff has referred to here as a ‘pissing contest’.

It seems that every columnist must attack bloggers at some point. I feel like it is fear of competition – columnists have traditionally had a pretty cushy gig and now the unwashed masses are writing things for free that are in many cases more interesting and educational than anything they ever said.

As for the blogosphere being a place – I noticed this waaaay back in the late 80′s (pre-GUI, ha) on the Well in Berkeley (anyone? anyone?). I could not get it out of my head that the Well was NOT a place, because it felt so much like a neighborhood.

A “collection of people” is a pretty broad description. Ghenghis Khan had a collection of people.

The distrusted, uncontrollable, outsider-laden blogosphere takes its time-honored place along a path that links directly back to the appearance of the Internet itself, and to the original Big Bang of Us, the appearance of the most distrusted, uncontrollable device of all, the personal computer. There is really nothing to do but to keep doing ad-ons and see where they take us. And chart how we are changed in the process.

The problem is in the word “blogosphere.” It has connotations of a self contained entity, one with physical properties to be studied and analyzed.

Now, if we just used the logic of your last paragraph, we could just rename ourselves “Soylent Green” (it’s made of people!”) And then they would surely leave us alone. Or maybe even get your point.

There is no blogosphere. In fact there are blogospheres.

as Ludwig von Mises said:

” There is no need to argue whether a collective is the sum resulting from the addition of its elements or more, whether it is a being suigeneris, and whether it is reasonable or not to speak of its will, plans, aims, and actions and to attribute to it a distinct “soul.” Such pedantic talk is idle. A collective whole is a particular aspect of the actions of various individuals and as such a real thing determining the course of events.”

(, p44)

Sorry, forgot to include the URL.

I really didn’t meant to call you a moron but then again the name of my blog is Because the Medium is the Message and it was late last night when I read it.

I constantly tell my students that they are way way way more than just their personal voice. Yes, there are two distinct levels: individual (blogger) and cultural (blogosphere). And each blogger is for sure a person and for sure has her own words and her own personality. But you’re doing bloggers — especially the neophyte — a disservice when you suggest that they’re not a medium.

The blogosphere is a medium — a very powerful tsunami of individual voices (individual ants) that in unintended consequence have created an emergent pattern, an emergent voice — the passion chamber, if you get my drift from Naken Conversations — that is “a mass, not a monolith, not even a medium.”

You can call an AP stringer just a person, a voice. But, if thst stringer is picked up and repeated and replicated (and we all know that there is zero discernment between AP stories and NYTimes stories, sadly) then that single voice can simple change brand and cultural perception.

The single voice is not alone. That single voice is Kosmos.

Blogosphere is a word for idiots, it’s for sales people and cable news reporters. It is a word used by people who say things like Web 2.0 and own iPods.