David Bullard’s Sunday Times column was not kind to bloggers. If you missed it, here is a line:
Many bloggers prefer to remain anonymous and with good reason. The content of their sites is so moronic that even their best friends would disown them if they knew they were the authors. As with most things in life, something that costs nothing is usually worth nothing and that puzzles me. Are there really 70 million bloggers out there hoping that their writing talents will be recognised, or is this just another example of modern narcissism?
The response from bloggers has been outrage. Vincent Maher had this to say:
I think we need to demand an apology or a justifcation for what Bullard has said in his column, and what the Sunday Times has endorsed by publishing it – that we are the type of people who will gun down our fellows at university.
My feeling? I read Bullard’s column with both a chuckle and a gulp. A chuckle because Bullard is wicked. Which is why so many people laugh with him when he pillories the idiots. A gulp because its not so nice when you are lumped with his idiots. I have to disagree with his harsh conclusion that all bloggers are wannabe columnnists or pimply teenagers or psycho killers.
The irony for me is that Bullard is actually being true to the spirit of blogging, he’s just doing it in print. Think about it: Emotionally charged, unmediated, quickly researched, instinctive, raw and controversial. Now he was just a little more technologically literate, we could have a great blog on our hands …
The question I have is why do bloggers feel so threatened by an old media column? And why does an old media columnist feel so threatened by blogging? The answer is that we are living in a time of rapid change and the old is rubbing up rather uncomfortably against the new.
As for Vincent’s demand for an apology because the Sunday Times “endorses” what Bullard says by publishing it. I’m sure he’ll think about it and realise that the publication of opinion, varied, controversial and perhaps even insensitive is better than starting to sift through writing for anything that offends anyone. Like they do in Zimbabwe.
Blogging by Ray Hartley, editor of The Times, South Africa, a daily newspaper to be launched in June 2007.
Ray, I’m pretty sure if the Sunday Times called all people practicing the faith of Islam terrorists there would be a quick apology forthcoming – how is this different?
Hi Ray
Thanks for the considered response.
So how did you feel about the PSSST! column in The Weekender?
I just want you to know that I don’t find your blog boring.
IrcMaidon
David reminds me of my tenure as a PR man and the ideas that come out of a brainstorming session for a publicity campaign at a PR firm. Thinking more of it, tells me he has done a great job of getting known to those who never even new him before. Free publicity! Eish! Wish it was all mine. But apology-demand must stand.
Vincent – When I last checked, blogging was not a religion. Yet.
No it isn’t – are you saying its okay to insult large groups of people unless they’re a religious group?
I think its okay to criticise a social phenomenon, which is what blogging is. Let me rephrase that: I think its GREAT that commentators are finally being forced into acknowledging this social phenomenon, even by criticising it.
Nice sidestep there Ray, but the fact remains that generalising all bloggers as psychopathic killers in a publication that has authority is, in my opinion, an abuse of power – the kind that creates a rift between bloggers and the media. It is precisely this that causes that rift.
Aside from that, Bullard’s opinions are not informed by fact at all – however he doesn’t stick to clear opinion, he blatantly makes false statements as if they were the truth. This is why some on the more militant side of citizen journalism consider the media as a target rather than an ally.
Ten points to the Sunday Times for aggravating that tension even more.
Ten points to Vincent for stirring and stirring and stirring
[...] Hartley hits it on the head once again with this well-thought out, clever post. The local blogosphere has erupted into some sort of sycophantic, self-defensive murmur after David [...]
Ahhh, but David didn’t admit to secretly also playing with an air-keyboard! And I don’t mean the musical type!
I feel the same as Vincent. So its okay stereo-typing a group as mass murderers as long as two words (racism and religion) does not appear in the content? Why should we keep quiet about it? Take one on the chin since the two taboo words were not mentioned? You’ve got to be kidding me…
ZOMG, David Bullard’s trolling – in print!
Hang on a sec… isn’t that what he’s been doing all along?
[...] Ray Hartley of The Times has posted his thoughts about all of this on his [...]
“when you are lumped with his idiots” …but we are all idiots to him. That is his media persona (or real one – can’t say, never met the guy).
No matter what you do or how you do it, D.Bullard will find that edge of it to make you out as an idiot.
I think that he does have a point about people being able to publish just about anything on the net. Did no one who read the article actually wonder who’s site was seen to be ridiculously racist? And that we perhaps are allowing extreme bigotry to the extent of inciting racist action in our medium?
Or was everyone just on defence from the 1st line of the column?
Vincent – as for the world of Islam…now there is one example of a religion that is being criticised more and more for not tolerating ANY FORM of criticism against it. And this is causing it to stagnate & develop extremists. Bloggers need to be able to handle respectful criticism so that we can develop our medium to incredible heights.
The question I am asking is, was D.Bullard’s column disrespectful or not? Did it cross THAT subtle line?
There wasn’t an iota of respect, hence the response. I criticize the blogosphere every day but I don’t suggest all bloggers want to be journalists, wish they could get laid or are mass murderers. Normally those kind of statements are used when people can’t justify their arguments rationally.
But I do want to get laid!! Where he got it wrong though, is that when I do, I actually have more info to (maybe) post on my blog!
For now, I am doing what you criticised the guy for not doing… researching, widely reading the bloggers’ opinions, considering all points being put forward, before I make up my mind on this issue of “respect”. And whether he crossed that line.
Meanwhile, did anyone else read the article about blogging in the Sunday Independent? Where is the reaction to that?? It was about how intimidation might be silencing half the blog world, that of women’s voices.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901555.html
I’m trying to think of the kind of headline I would put on a story about this controversy. Would it be:
Bloggers outraged at sweeping generalisations
or
Bloggers want newspaper columnist censored
or
Bloggers: We are not serial killers
C’mon guys, dont be so Blogmatic.
Get a life, guys. With the exception of Mr Hartley (and perhaps a few others that I have missed – and, I concede, I do not care enough to seek out), all the blustering in the blogosphere about Bullard’s blether about blogging proves him absolutely right. You are acting like fully-fledged morons by responding with such narrow-minded bad humour. If you think his views are mistaken, prove him wrong by writing something intelligent and thought-provoking because, let us face it, there is very little of that in the blogosphere. Go do it. Become the Bullard of Blogs.
So, there’s been quite a bit of anti-blogging stuff going on in British newspapers – mainly driven by the upcoming publication of a book by Andrew Keen, “The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy”.
But the posting that most reminds me of all of this Bullard bullshit is Jonathan Freedland’s in a Guardian blog, headlined: The blogosphere risks putting off everyone but point-scoring males.
This is his introduction:
“So you’re at a public meeting on, say, the war in Iraq and the main speaker has just sat down. Someone in the audience rises to declare the speaker is talking crap, but that’s typical of him because he knows nothing and it’s a scandal that he’s paid for the rubbish he turns out. A second man agrees that the speech was trash, but tells the first man he should crawl back under his stone because he never says anything worth listening to. A third man wonders why the speaker didn’t mention Israel, especially given his Zionist-sounding last name.
“The first man is now shouting at the second man, insulting him for insulting him first. A woman gets up to make a point about the war in Iraq, but she is rapidly drowned out by a fourth and fifth man now debating Israel and the Palestinians. A sixth man compares the speaker to Hitler and proceeds to read out a 1,500-word article he read somewhere six years ago. If that has an oddly familiar ring, it may be because you’re spending a lot of time online, specifically in the new and still lawless world known as the blogosphere.”
Sound familiar?
Ray, possible headline: Bloggers bite back at Bullard, or Bullard like a red rag to bloggers?
Right – so having done that, the response from the Sunday Times is to try turn it around on the bloggers. Bloggers inside the organization are defending the view that their opinions on their blogs are useless drivel, etc. No answers as to the accuracy of Bullard’s statements – and even at his most vitriolic, he gets it wrong, the Virginia tech killer DID NOT BLOG.
What we are being told is that the mainstream media can publish whatever they feel like, and when we ask for some sort of acknowledgment when they make a mistake they turn around and shrug their shoulders.
Vincent: In my post (at the top of this page, which I encourage you to read) I clearly stated: “I have to disagree with his harsh conclusion that all bloggers are wannabe columnnists or pimply teenagers or psycho killers.”
I also pointed out: “the publication of opinion, varied, controversial and perhaps even insensitive is better than starting to sift through writing for anything that offends anyone. Like they do in Zimbabwe.”
You insistence that this constitutes some kind of endorsement of his commentary is WHACK. What I am endorsing is his right to say whatever he damn well pleases, which I have (naively, perhaps) understood to be the credo of the blogosphere.
“What I am endorsing is his right to say whatever he damn well pleases”.
I understand this debate now, and I guess I’m wasting my time. Just two questions though: is asking for an apology the same as asking for censorship? And, when editors agree to publish something, are they not effectively saying that they, and the company they work for, are willing to defend the viewpoint legally? That sounds like an endorsement to me.
Vincent: Thank for for airing your views on -rather what appears to be- a serious slur against the denizens of the Blogosphere!
Unfortunately, there are many of you bloggers out there that have tainted the medium. While there are SOME quality out there, the majority consist of posers how indulge in keyboard masturbation. Sad really.
Maybe if you spend 15min actually reading whats out there, maybe you will see the article in another context. Yes, it is dangerous to generalize. However,by overreacting,you expose your position and maybe provide hints to your own intolerance opinions that don’t quite suit your taste buds.
There are more serious things to get our backs up about. Ciao!
[...] – are you then just in fact a glorified blogger? It seems as if The Times’ new Editor in his blog post this morning might concur with [...]
Anne, that’s a bad analogy of what happens in the blogosphere. I know you didn’t write it, but my crit against it would be that it disregards authority (yes, something like that actually exists on the internet and probably has more backing than it does in the real world).
Andre, we’re talking about scale here. Just because it’s easy to publish on a blog means that there are a lot more out there. When last was TV the paramount of intellectual thought? Just because it’s there doesn’t mean you need to read it.
I doubt it that Bullard wanted to link bait. You are giving him way too much credit than is due.
@Ray – Peace
@Andre – dude, I keep tabs on more than five hundred South African blogs on Amatomu every day, so I’m well aware of the bad stuff, but also the good. Justin Hartman from Afrigator can testify to this too – we both work with other bloggers data all the time and between the two of us we have seen our fair share of all sorts of crazy stuff.
When popular culture emerged the custodians of high art had the same response that Bullard is having. I think the thing to take from all of this is that today has been the first time the South African blogosphere has responded to a situation in a co-ordinated fashion and, by my count, just over ten percent of South African bloggers got involved directly.
It’s a little show of force from both sides, so when we sit back and take stock I think some good lessons will have been learned . From my side I think that the presence of the two aggregators amplified the response to a great extent and, if you are like me and see blogging as an emerging base for consumer activism, then you will be satisfied that we all played our parts perfectly today.
[...] Some lively debate happening on the Sunday Times Deputy Editors/Times Editor’s [...]
Bullard’s pitiful commentary only signals to me the poor quality of the paper that printed his rubbish. But whatever, I guess he’s entitled to his opinion.
“The question I have is why do bloggers feel so threatened by an old media column? And why does an old media columnist feel so threatened by blogging?”
…interesting, though I think it’s pretty funny to refer to “bloggers” as if we’re a tight click. I’d add “some” or something else in front there.
My only regret is that in commenting I run the risk of being perceived as joining the ranks of the angry bloggers who have blown the whole thing out of proportion, probably to get publicity. Oh well.
[...] but wait, hark! ..you think Groogle hasn’t been sharing a tip or two with the man. LOL!! Ray and teamsters have been hard at work, and no doubt delighting in David taking on the bad cop role [...]
Vincent – Peace AND Love!
Well done, guys, I reckon you’ve fully substantiated Bullard’s argument with the amount of drivel you have managed to come up with.
I suggest you re-read his column (or even the paragraph that Hartley quotes at the top of this thread) before making such knee-jerk responses. Bullard doesn’t say that ALL bloggers are banal, stupid or psychopathic killers but does intimate that there are a lot of narcissistic illiterates out there who are filling cyberspace with rubbish. (It’s a good thing it’s only virtual, and we are not losing a rain-forest every day!)
The second paragraph of Bullard’s column reads: “It’s comforting to know that, should Fred or I decide to take a sabbatical, there’s no shortage of people available to hold the fort. The only snag is the quality, or lack of it.”
And he is spot on. I read many blogs daily and the quality of the written word as produced by ‘amateurs’ is appalling. Opinions are fine, but I would suggest that most bloggers are in need of a decent copy sub-editor who can turn their drivel into English.
Who cares?
While I do not currently blog, I’ve HAD dozens of blogs which fell by the wayside, some of them still exist today albeit a bit neglected but I have considered myself a blogger for a very long time.
And this huge hoohaa over nothing has just incited me to start blogging all over again, then I’ll also insult my fellow bloggers because damn, I want some of that linkage!
But the fact remains that when I read the column, I burst out laughing.
Seems to me there are wayyyyy too many fragile egos on the blogosphere.
I give David credit on allowing me to laugh at myself.
Laugh at yourselves, I promise it feels good.
Having mused over his air-keyboard (not the musical one!), he then slowly drags his wretched old self towards his wrecked burglar bars to catch a breath of fresh air – as he realises that technology is beyond his feebly aged comprehension… At the burglars bars he’s suddenly engulfed by a fit of rage (possibly memories of an alleged burglary), whips out his pen and scribbles something against bloggers. Ah, the worst thing one can do – attack something they don’t know.
>To Bull(whatever here): Blogging is a phenomena far beyond your comprehension old timer. Take your retirement package and forget you ever came across it. But let me let you in on a little secret: Blogging is the easiest way to start and maintain YOUR own web site. Note to (your) self: a blog is usually for ’self’ and unlike your precociously conceived Sunday attempts at creative writing (yes, we know you’re an illerate old hog – who only came into the media by the biological default of english speaking decent and mild expressionism). Anyway, blogs can be used for research, teaching and to establish a personal web presence – take a pick, but don’t pick on things you know little about – that leaves you with little choices I guess….>
And then the old man retires to his bedroom with a proud sense of achievement as he puts his pen down and anxiously awaits the next day whereupon he’ll give his editor his ad hominen attack on bloggers. If he only knew that certain bloggers can do what he does ten times better over and over, but choose not to, print media is dull, boring and will soon be eradicated by the digital domains (a thought that perhaps gives the old man sleepless nights and wishful daydreams to one day get his hands on a real keyboard)…
:+
[...] within a couple of days he had his own Sunday Times blog. Additionally, key members of The Times, including Editor Ray Hartley, posted responses in their personal [...]
What a fantastic ruckus. The Internet is populated with vacuous morons, stereotypical geeks, bored housewives, esoteric simpletons, crusty hippies, spiritual pseudo-gurus, wannabe-poets and the list goes on. Ag shame, the Blogosphere (forgive me for using a term that makes me want to regurgitate violently… oops, I did… just a little in my mouth) has been “attacked” by Bullard. Man, how pathetic? How insanely predictable? How embarrassing?
I’m a haphazard blogger and have been for over 4 years now. I usually spend my online time as a forum junkie, slavering over my ever-increasing post count ;p since I prefer the daily instant interation. I am a notorious troll and I try to flame bait at any given occasion, simply to brighten up my day with the gullibility and ignorance of so many who like to consider themselves technophiles. These denizens of the online world think they’re special because they belong to some sort of clan. Once again, I puke a little in my mouth and say: “Blogosphere”? Imagine feeling a belonging to such a thing? It’s as if Bullard taunted the Chess Team at school and they all fought back in their private journals, writing underneath the sheets by the light of a torch: “I’ll get that guy”.
Fragile little snivelling sensitivities the lot of ya. Grow the hell up. It makes me cringe for you. My toes are curling.
David has made a laughing stock of any blogger that took offense. It’s a shame really, because there are, in fact, some bloody decent bloggers out there.
Bloggers are, in a lot of ways, frustrated journalists/columnists. Their puerile dreams are satiated by the fact that thye get a certain number of clicks on their mundane websites or blogs. “I have an audience. Wow! I’m not alone in this big, scary world. Thank you Mr. Internet!”
What are you actually arguing here? Bullard pays his bandwidth bills (amongst others) with the cash that he gets paid to be read by hundreds of thousands of people. Throwing out free content is pointless really. It’s does have some form of cathartic effect though, the whole “my voice is being heard” and you “feel” that you’re making some kind of contribution to the world and your opinion actually means something. Bollocks.
Your opinion is just a tiny little bleep in cyberspace. A whsiper amongst millions. There’s no barier to entry here fellas. My comment is just as worthy as yours, or Bullards, but I don’t see my weekly column in the Sunday Times.
Bullard is bloody good at what he does and his position reflects that. Your click-throughs and link swapping and mindless rants mean absolutely nothing in the larger scheme of things.
Congratulations, you have a blog. Do you realise how easy it is to blog? Do you realise how easy it is to have an opinion? Do you realise that a trained moneky could probably blog?
I’m with Bullard, let’s get Draconian and ban crappy blogs. Clogging up bandwidth and wasting people’s time.
I do realise that there are good blogs out there too, but it’s such a damned hassle to try and wade through the crap to find them. So I don’t bother. I prefer to fork out cash for my Sunday Times, where I can at least read something entertaining.
Ray, in what sense is a Sunday Times columnist “unmediated”? I’m concerned that – if that is indeed the case – there may be little exectation of qualititive differences between newspaper pundits and bloggers.
But I love the irony of your setting up of Mr Bullard – the columnist – as a quasi-blogger, when he seems to think that bloggers are wannabe columnists.
http://www.albolg.com/free-retirement-speech.html
Great blog.
There is a word for this Internet phenomenon:
Troll:
to post controversial or provocative messages in a deliberate attempt to provoke flames.
Based on the meaning of the word in a fishing context, I’d say everyone fell for it – hook, line and sinker.
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
Hey
Amazing weight loss stories here,
And here you can buy Anatrim
http://www.zmeii.com/?toxaawgjgw
I’ve always had trouble with my weight ever since I was young. Of course I tried all the “best” fat loss products, nothing helped very much. It wasn’t til I tried Anatrim that I saw the pounds seriously start to melt away! Nothing helped me lose weight faster. I literally saw 15 pounds melt away within the first few weeks! There’s nothing more exciting than watching pounds disappear, especially when you’ve tried all sorts of different methods and products before. I’ve since read up on Anatrim and am amazed at the number of people who have benefited from its amazing results. I’m halfway to my goal, Anatrim will get me the rest of the way