Last night, a wee faction of Brooklyn Skeptic attended the Third Annual Brooklyn Blogfest – an event which featured our three favorite things: free beer, free vegan cupcakes and Brooklyn blogging. The event was held at the Brooklyn Lyceum, which is a building on Fourth Avenue, seemingly crafted out of the ruins of the Berlin Wall.
Ten or so minutes into the presentations, Oneiroi correctly pointed out that this had a real lot in common with masturbation – metaphorically of course. One by one, local bloggers stood up to congratulate themselves on the totally mind-blowing awesomeness that is blogging. Brooklyn Skeptic, itself, went up on stage, shook its hand and declared a blogging beef with its new nemesis, Brooklyn Optimist.
Self love aside, a little part of me died when some new-media-style frat boys behind me actually boo-ed the lone representative of print media – Gersh Kuntzman from the relentlessly populist Brooklyn Paper. And, as all bloggers know, Gersh had a pretty rough week.
Now, what I like about this Gersh fellow, is that he stood up in front of a crowd of post-hip bloggers, openly questioned the value of commenters on blogs and asked what was up with all the “hate.” This is an important question, but I think equally important here is the distinction between hate and “snark” or skepticism, if you will. There is a powerful distiction between being a hater (as for sure, a huge number of commenters are) and being skeptical and offering subtle critique of things that suck. I think Oneiroi put it best:
Recklesley: I’m a little worried about saying something bad about the Blogfest.
Oneiroi: We’re the front line of the new media. We have to be honest. We can’t be plagued by the same patronage system that infects the media we live with today. Without our brooklynesque voices, who will stand up and say, “That sucked”? Tell me Recklesley, who? We’re not just people, we’re the voice of the people. The people of Brooklyn. America itself.
Recklesley: Okay. You win.
Oneiroi: Really? Because as I was typing that all I could think of was…”I’m such a dick”. But that’s usually running through my head anyways.
This Blogfest got me thinking about the rights and privledges of bloggers and the revered position we hold in our society/own minds. I am a huge proponent of open commenting (within the confines of acceptible human speech – as opposed to hate speech), even if the commenters are dumb, wrong, or annoying. Conversations are essential and they are the most valuable aspect of this kind of media. So yes, I welcome your comments about how bad you want to hit it with MK Olsen.
In conclusion, I think what we all learned from this night, was that, collectively, Brooklyn bloggers are self absorbed, but violently protective of free speech and free media. That seems pretty dead-on to me.
you forgot the all important MK Olsen tag
True skepticism is rare among anonymous commenters. Most of what passes for snark in comments is nothing more than baiting and trolling, harassment rather than genuine, thoughtful criticism.
I have always been both hopeful (I would not go so far as to say “optimistic”) and skeptical about the possibilities offered by technology. It’s just a tool. What matters is what we do with it.
Thanks for commenting, Xris! And it was great to meet you last night.
To be fair to the people who were booing Gersh (I wasn’t one of them)…Gersh took it upon himself to be the voice of old-media wisdom, giving advise to us whippersnappers about how to manage our comments and user interest. It was really the wrong time and place to be doing that, and his failure to recognize this made him come across as more clueless than did anything he actually said.
I definitely agree that his comments could be taken in such a way.
I was just appreciative of the critique – or even of the questions being asked. We’ve had issues on this blog about commenters and the line between free speech and hate speech, and we regularly question where these conversations bring all of us.
But really, doesn’t it just seem like the internet is teeming with people who are just waiting to spew vitriol at things that just don’t matter? And then don’t you just want to tell them to start their own blog?
I don’t know. Obviously, I’ve fallen on the side of open comments & open conversations. But I think it’s worthwhile to regularly revisit that and try to understand why it’s important.
While I sadly missed this exchange at the blogfest, as someone who has spoken at length with Gersh, he does seem to represent a dwindling percentage of journalists who seem to actually research their stories, and publish the facts as he can establish them concerning stories which are relevant to his readers. This is a lesson all of us in the blogosphere, commenter’s and posters alike, should absorb. At the end of the day, our drunken rants will fail to earn much loyalty if substance and interesting, diverse opinions don’t end up on the page. My singular post to Brooklyn Skeptic turned into quite a flame war in the comments. I like to think that the discourse, however uncivil, is the point, as I believe Recklesley indicates with her pokes at the self-congratulatory atmosphere seen at the admittedly homogeneous blogfest.
[...] drew some ire from those who participated. Most notable were two posts from Brooklyn Skeptic — here and here — that touched upon some of the Blogfests [...]
This Kuntzman fellow is okay I guess. But he really wants you bloggers to get off his lawn.