Rules? Rules In A Knife Fight?

The almost amusing, almost sick-making spectacle of Mike Arrington throwing rocks at Joshua Topolsky has led to a strange post by Arrington, where he proposes rules for this sort of blogging, which he is calling a blog fight.

I will leave aside the blow-by-blow, who-struck-John quality of the interchange between Arrington and Engadget — other have done that.

But I do want to take a pass at the proposed rules — not in the context of this fracas, but to see if there is any merit in having rules for this sort of dueling. My comments are embedded:

Mike Arrington, Blog Fight Rules Of Engagement

Here are a few core strategies:

• Only start a fight if you really believe in what you’re saying. Don’t start a fight just because you’re bored. It’s pointless. There needs to be an issue you really care about. The back and forth will help the truth get out.

The best writing, including journalism, is motivated by a desire to get at the heart of something: either the human condition, some injustice, or to help people understand something of importance. So, yes, believe in something, and try to apply your beliefs to broaden the understanding of your readers.

I will leave truth to one side: I am only willing to grapple with understanding.

• Be direct and be clear. Have a position that you believe in. The world is black and white. If you see lots of grey, stay on the sidelines.

I don’t think the world in general is black and white. Many issues are complex, and involve the inherent problem of context: different people perceive a situation differently because of dissimilar backgrounds and beliefs. This is what makes understanding hard in many cases, and it can’t be made simple by a writer’s fiat.

• Generally you don’t start a fight with a smaller site unless they’ve done something really egregious. Fight up the food chain. Conversely, you have to ignore the countless jabs you take from the small guys. They’re just trying to get attention, or they have no idea what they’re talking about, or they’re just plain crazy.

I think ‘don’t pick on someone smaller than you’ is schoolyard ethics, and doesn’t translate to the world of open discourse. Arrington obviously equates size with number of readers, but philosophically I feel that is an irrelevancy. It has nothing to do with importance of the issues being discussed, and is some sort of arrogance disguised as fairness.

• Don’t engage in French-style military strategy by going half way and then surrendering. Robert Scoble does this all the time. He picks a fight and then he backs off completely when he takes return fire. If he didn’t feel strongly enough about the issue to begin with, there was no reason to jump in.

Leaving aside the digs at the French and Scoble, I agree in part: if you believe in what you are advocating, then stick to your guns. On the other hand, you should always keep an open mind, and be willing to modify your position based on better information or new understanding.

• Most importantly, don’t just engage in fights you know you’ll win. You’re doing this to fight for what you think is right or correct, not score points. Sure, I take the easy wins when they’re handed to me, but I try not to take cheap shots even then. And I often engage in fights that I know I’m going to lose because I care about the topic. And I always know if I’m going to win or not before I even post. See Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation.

This is some sort of meta-rule, and one that doesn’t seem to shed much light on getting at issues. It’s about winning and losing, not about helping the community learn anything.

• In summary, don’t pander to the crowd. It’s pointless. If they love you they’ll hate you tomorrow anyway, and vice versa. Write what you believe and your head will stay in a good place.

I don’t think Arrington mean ‘in summary’ since this doesn’t summarize the previous ‘rules’. Perhaps he meant ‘Above all’ or ‘Finally’.

Yes, by all means write what you believe: but check your facts. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, ‘Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts’.

I think the idea of ‘rules for a blog fight’ fails, ultimately, because there is no referee, and no way to stipulate who wins or loses. It might be a fight, but it’s not the sort that needs rules to make it fair, aside from the messy, messy conventions of open social discourse, where the battles we fight are decided in the mind of the reader.

As usual, we have to rely on the sense and sensibilities of the community of people observing these antics, who might be slipping away to do something more interesting rather than staying to watch the melee.

@arvind at Plugged.In notes that readership at both sites are down: perhaps people are voting with their feet?