A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand... Or Can It?

The shape of my reading this past week allowed me to somehow miss the controversy stirred up by the gloriously prickly Nick Carr with his Great Unread post, destined however to be known for his use of Galbraith's "innocent fraud" term vis-a-vis the blogosphere:

An innocent fraud is a lie, but it's a lie that's more white than black. It's a lie that makes most everyone happy. It suits the purposes of the powerful because it masks the full extent of their power, and it suits the purposes of the powerless because it masks the full extent of their powerlessness.

What we tell ourselves about the blogosphere - that it's open and democratic and egalitarian, that it stands in contrast and in opposition to the controlled and controlling mass media - is an innocent fraud.

Nick states -- to summarize and dropping aside all the metaphoric trappings -- that the inexorable power laws of the blogosphere translate into a sort of stasis, where wannabe A-listers can only get ahead by having existing A-listers link to them. But these A-listers are very selective, and only choose to affiliate with wannabes who suck up to them, and this creates a more-or-less feudal state with most of the power accruing to the apex A-listers. When the old media players come striding up to make deals with the blogosphere it is the A-list that will benefit, and not the blogosphere as a whole. He uses Seth Finkelstein and Kent Newsome as examples of those who toil and moil in relative obscurity, and who express a melancholy -- even bitter -- attitude about this state of affairs.

The subtext of Carr's thesis is that those who benefit most from the inequitable distribution of readers in blogosphere -- the A-List -- are responsible for the inequity. And the unspoken suggestion is that the A-list should do something about it. Or at the least agree that the egalitarianism and openness of the blogosphere is an innocent fraud, a white lie, a social touchstone that covers up a dark backstory.

And of course, this attack on the motivations of A-list met with an inevitable backlash.

Mike Arrington jumps in with both feet, suggesting that Nick is an asshole (see Is Nick Carr the new Robin Hood, or just an Asshole?), and stating that Nick's motive is not necessarily sticking up for the little guy, but just a cheap way to get links, and offering the "cream rises/write with passion" argument for A-lister success:

Nick goes on a rant about how unfair the blogging world is. It’s an easy way to get links (hey, he’s getting mine for the first time), but his post is complete nonsense and shows that he has no idea what blogging is all about. His central thesis is that the big blogs have just replaced old media in trying to create an entrenched, defendable position. The big blogs, he says, are supported by the peasants (small blogs), occasionally throwing them a bone (link) as an incentive to keep linking to them.

None of this is accurate. The “biggest” blogs have changed dramatically over the last year since I started writing. Guys that commanded large audiences have fallen, new people have risen. Sure, there are massive politics and games involved, and a lot of mud gets thrown about. But at the end of the day those people with interesting things to say tend to get listened to. Those that don’t…dont.

Much of Mike's counter argument has merit: the blogosphere A-list (and B-, C-, and D-lists) is constantly in flux, and many of the top blogs -- including Arrington's own TechCrunch -- were not in the A-list a few years ago, while many others have dropped in relative popularity. Mike seems to be a living example of cream rising.

But what is missing in both of these arguments is other dimensions of change. Carr seems to want to ignore the fact that the A-list is changing all the time, while Arrington doesn't want to reflect on the fact that his TechCrunch represents the "media-ization" of the blogosphere, another major change that is happening in real time. TechCrunch is no mere blog. And he is not the A-lister of a few years ago. He is a Rupert Murdoch in the making.

Carr suggests a future where the old media barons will come in and make deals with successful "bloggers", but instead the Arringtons of the world are reinventing media and leveraging the playing field of the blogosphere. All the elements of the blogosphere are changing in real time, including what a blog is. Carr is alluding to this change, but is missing the fundamental shift in the fabric of the blogosphere: he's so tied to the Great Man theory -- that things happen because individuals take action -- that he misses the fact that people adapt to changes wrought by tens of millions of tiny independent decisions made by millions of individuals.

And neither of them address the huge change of the readership: as more and more mainstream centroids (regular folks, not the fringe lunatics that were blogging before blogging was normal) start to read blogs, we will see dramatic changes in what a successful blog is. And everyone has a vote. Sure, they are not equal, since the value of hyperlinks vary with the swarmth (karma, or whuffie) of the source making the link, but they still add up. Somelike like Mike Arrington can ride the wave of popularity of a trend like Web 2.0 from nothing to towering media giant in a year or two: to Mike, that seems like the American Dream, obvious proof of the inherent egalitarianism built into the fabric of the blogosphere. To Carr, TechCrunch's rise is another proof of the swindle built into the game: Arrington's success has been powered from the labor of the ten thousand others writing about web 2.0, in obscurity, linking to TechCrunch, and who now are frozen out of much of the reward as Web 2.0 goes mainstream.

This smacks of the fundamental division between liberals and conservatives. Liberals are much more likely to assert that luck plays a large role in people's success in life, while conservatives believe that pluck counts for more than anything else.

So, it should be no surprise that Arrington, who has risen high based on the inner power-law logic of the blogosphere, should look back and see that his success is the outcome of good writing attracting a mob of happy readers, while Carr would likely view it as mere luck: being in the right place at the right time, and using the power that the blogosphere provides to accumulate even more power, for personal aggrandizement.

Both of these writers fail to convince, absolutely, simply because their thinking is too absolute. Mike cannot convince those who have seen his striving over the past few years that it is only on the merit of his writing that he has been so successful. Mike's intentional use of his influence and his scoop mentality surrounding product announcements are obviously intended to cement his position. He is a new media baron, and he is after all that comes with that. But at the same time, Carr is tarred by his own brush: he is trying to use his position to make changes, or at least expose what he considers hypocrisy. You can't stand in the bully pulpit, shouting about the power politics of media leaders, without undermining your own hypothetical distrust of power: the knife cannot cut itself.

Shel Israel's response to Carr is just an echo of Arrington's, writ small. His suggestion that Carr quit blogging is mean-spirited and close-minded (which is perhaps what we should expect of the fellow who was chairing the "Kinder, Gentler Blogosphere" session at Les Blogs a few years back, and who immediately came to the support of Mina Trott when she called Ben Metcalfe an asshole for his backchannel remarks).

Shelley Powers offers a pithy response to Israel's post:

You know the nice thing about being a woman in weblogging, especially if you frequent the ‘weblogging as topic’ or technology lists, is that no one listens to you anyway, so you can damn well say what you want. The guys, on the other hand, take it all way too seriously because they’re listened to – well, if they’ve learned how to ‘pump the tire’, so to speak, they are – and they want to go down as someone wise, with it, and prescient.

[...]

Now, I could respond in depth, like I’ve responded elsewhere this week, hopefully with something learned sounding and impressive but then I thought: why waste my time? Why not just have some fun, and say whatever the hell I want and we’ll all have a giggle, which is probably a lot better use of our time anyway.

So, here’s a brain teaser: what sentences can you derive from the following words: Shel Israel, blog evangelist, naked conversationist, tells Nick Carr to sit down shut up.

Here’s my first:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

The apparent irony in the co-author of Naked Conversations telling a fellow blogger to shut up is hilarious. This is the same Shel Israel that made the following comment on this blog after I built on a fairly tepid post of Robert Scoble's in a posting called Scoble on Tips For Joining The A-List:

Stowe,

I suspect you did not read Robert's entire posting before you decided to use it as a platform to launch your own tips. This disappoints me.

A tip, Shel: building on someone else's thoughts, and reflecting that back with some thoughts of your own is called a conversation, and it's the heart of blogging: not some kind of flim-flam.

I used Lincoln's paraphrase of something attributed to Jesus -- A house divided against itself cannot stand -- for the title of this post because I believe the blogosphere is big enough to hold all this controversy in it: this is not a civil war, but just a heated argument. The Shel Israels of the world -- the small-minded, exclusionary, and uncivil -- will not actually cause people like Nick Carr to shut up. The possibility of huge success like Arrington's will continue to inspire and cause concern. New entrants will struggle to become prominent, and some may become discouraged while others will push forward. The system will be gamed, and the game itself will change.

But the house -- the blogosphere -- will stand, so long as we keep at it. There's no stopping it now. Even the old media players showing up and throwing big money around won't stop the transition of power to the edge, even if power falls into the hands of the A-listers, too. The edglings are having too much fun, and everybody wants to jump in.

Can I get an amen?

tags: shel+israel, nick+carr, michael+arrington, innocent+fraud, john+kenneth+galbraith, shelley+powers, a+list, blogging, blogosphere, kent+newsome, seth+finkelstein, abraham+lincoln, edglings

Comments

[Aaron Brazell]

As someone caught somewhere between A-list and longtail I think everybody in that conversation made good points and end of the day, it's just different ways of looking at the same problem. IT's true that people get into blogging because they hear what it can do for them and its true that when those hopes are dashed after two weeks they become dislillusioned and bitter. It's natural in a liberal society to flame those who have struck out before making success and trying to somehow equalize the playing field. The blogosphere is truly the only equalizing place on the internet, as you mentioned Stowe. The stars of yesteryear have dimmed and new stars are emerging. At the end of the day, if you look at it all in a very narrowly focused window of "right now", and that is how most long-tail looks at it, then it is a discouraging place to be because it really doesn't seem very just. However, in the big picture view, the portrait as it were, the ebb and flow is very dynamic and an A-lister can find themselves quickly demoted as fast as they ascended to their thrones.

Nick Carr took to the portrait view. Shel and Mike took to the "right now" look. Of course they'll come to different conclusions.

Great topic though.

[jeneane]

amen, brother.

Thank you for so eloquently relating what really IS special about the blogosphere, and that is NOT the all-or-nothingness of it, the a-or-zness of it, but the all-of-it-at-the-same-time-ness of it.

Even so, it makes my head want to explode.

[David Tebbutt]

I'll give you an 'amen' to that.

But I have to take you to task when you say: "The Shel Israels of the world -- the small-minded, exclusionary, and uncivil"

The business card he gave me in May says "Nice Guy" on it. So your remark can't possibly be true.

[Ben Metcalfe]

Stowe wrote:

"Can I get an amen?"

Amen.

[Jay Rosen]

Amen.

[Mickeleh]

Amen.

I'm looking for some history here: who first began rating and ranking blogs as A-list or otherwise? Was it an A-lister? or a wannabe. How long ago did that start? Does A-hole rank higher than A-list? (afterall, anatomically, the anus is located in front of the long tail. So, that's pretty good status.)

[Bob Aman]

Sure, Amen, why not.

Of course you're absolutely, right, but honestly, I've never found the "A-list" all that interesting. I used to subscribe to a huge chunk of the "A-list" because I wanted to stay on the cutting edge or whatever, but seriously, the "A-list" spends so much time squabbling and going on about this or that and how blogging will radically change the world (because they're doing it) and it's all a load of poppycock written by people with egos bloated by Google Juice. I've long since unsubscribed from virtually everyone in the "A-list" except for Nick Carr (Does he actually count as "A-list" yet? Does anyone care?) because honestly, I have better things to do with my life than read about this kind of stuff. Virtually all the blogs I read now are written by people who are building fascinating things rather than people who merely talk about other people building things. And as you say, when blogging really actually does go mainstream, the "A-list" will change radically. My prediction? Cute Overload will end up at #1 instead of Engadget or Boing Boing or Techcrunch.

[Karl]

Amen and well said.

[Dennis Howlett]

David: 'Nice Guy?' - maybe so on the card, maybe not so when stick comes to lift?

[Seth Finkelstein]

Sigh ... so many fallacies, so little time and space ...

Err, "FinkELstein", not "Fickelstein"

"inexorable power laws of the blogosphere translate into a sort of stasis ..."

Classic strawman - for a system of patronage and oligarchy, substitute the claim that it's utterly impossible for anyone at all to achieve prominence no matter what, knock down the strawman, declare this refutes the original claim.
Analogy: An incumbent politician *can* be defeated. But it's rare and usually requires huge wealth and influence, in order to fight the patronage and advantages of incumbency.

"blogosphere A-list (and B-, C-, and D-lists) is constantly in flux"

I call this the "Fame Is Fickle" argument. Sure, some stars fade, other rise - but who cares if YOU will almost certainly remain in obscurity? It doesn't refute the idea that topics tend to have a few gatekeepers of enormous influence over "discussions", and everyone else who has to beg them to get much distribution.

"Arrington can ride the wave of popularity ..."

You don't mention that Arrington was Winer's lawyer for his Verisign buyout, and is *highly* connected to existing A-listery. Which would seem to be a very relevant aspect of this discussion. Ah, beautiful theory slain by ugly fact.
(note: PERSONAL ATTACK DOES NOT CHANGE THIS!)

"Even the old media players showing up and throwing big money around won't stop the transition of power to the edge, even if power falls into the hands of the A-listers, too."

Saying doesn't make it so. In fact, one theme here is that power is *not* "transitioning to the edge", but simply to new centers, which are possibly *worse* - that's *worse* - than the old (one example: The Where-Are-The-Women issue). Moreover, that dangles the temptation of power - your word - in front of people who will almost certainly never, ever, have any significant amount of it, in order to get them to play that game, as a kind of multi-level marketing scheme where the early participants and savvy exploiters make out like bandits, while everyone else loses big.

What so great about meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

While I understand the deeply-felt preaching, in the end, this is a sermon from the same place, just kinder and gentler, tugging at the heartstrings instead of invoking fire and brimstone against heretics. No amen, sorry. I no longer believe in the blogosphere-God.

[Shelley]

Curious, is there a reason you linked the other folks but not my post?