Something to think about...

CRITICISM!


Last week I got a spanking at the New York Observer. One of their bloggers, Phil Weiss, had attended a Half/Life reading, and as a result, he called me a "Natterpus" and suggested that I was too focused on networking and not enough on spirituality.


While this particular criticism is likely true (considering that most of us are guilty of such a sin) I found some real inaccuracies in what Weiss posted (including the fact that Mose was circumcised at the hospital). So I tried to comment on his blog post, and the moderator (it turns out Weiss does not moderate his own comments) refused or neglected to make my comment visible.


Katharine Weber, who received an even harsher set of snarks in the same post, also tried to comment and her remarks met with the same fate. They fell away into the aether. Of course, we assumed that Weiss was intentionally avoiding our corrections of his post.


So the other night, after a few beers, I got to thinking, and wrote Phil a letter.


To his great credit, he responded to me immediately, graciously apologized, posted my letter on his site, and we've been corresponding ever since.


Now... why am I telling you this?


Because the incident has me thinking about what it means to be a critic, what it means to be a blogger, and in particular what it means to be a blog-critic, to write criti-blogs (if that's a word).


The way Phil responded to me was open, warm immediate, personal. He made use of the best facets of the web. But in his initial post he fell prey to the very worst aspects of the aetherworld.


He responded immediately. Without fact checking, without considering how (particularly if he was wrong) his words would feel/sound. He was unintentional, careless.


No surprise there. Because blogging REQUIRES immediacy, a constant deadline, a quick draw. And so sometimes, bloggers are focused on speed and impulse rather than consideration and accountability.


Sometimes this leads to good, instictive, raw writing. Sometimes it leads to a sloppy mess.


Look, criticism is critical. Of course it is. Fine. But you want to make sure that when you rant, you can stand behind your rantings. You want to check your sources and ask yourself if you really will want to have said what it is you want to say.


Online, no matter what you do, you're gonna piss someone off. But you should make sure you're pissing people off for the right reasons...


Why am I going on and on about this? Becasue I've done just what Phil did, many many times. I'm also a ranty blogger, and I've had to apologize a lot, and learn a bit about posting, then sitting on my post, checking my facts, and waiting to publish for a few hours... until I'm ready to back my shit up. Until I know that I want to go on the record as saying what I've decided to say. The more snarly I feel, the longer I wait to hit that "publish" button.


It's all about commiting. Committing words to the page is committing to your words. This is an area where the ease of online publishing is hurting us all, diminishing the quality of what we write. Cutting out the middleman of careful revision.


And he's an important man, that middleman. Maybe we could all stand to take a lesson from print media on this one. Like, if it actually cost you MONEY to print your post, would you still think it was worth saying? What does your post contribute to the world? And if it doesn't contribute, why bother saying it, when you could be playing frisbee or something, drinking a beer instead...


So to Phil Weiss, many many thanks for your openness and willingness to dialogue. And many thanks for helping me remember a lesson I'd do well not to forget in the future. It was important for me to feel this side of the wily criti-blog.


For the rest of you, if you've read this far... GO AND READ MY LETTER!