As many of you know, the Media Giraffe Project conference is happening this weekend at UMass-Amherst. I went out there today for the blogger meet-up and for Chris Lydon’s session in which he asks, “Does New England need a virtual meeting place for news, analysis, discussion and action on politics, culture, environment and life?” As always, Chris asked thoughtful and provocative questions of the 30 or so folks from a variety of walks of life who sat in on the discussion.
As I’ve said to Lydon a couple of times, and as Adam Gaffin also noticed, I’d respectfully submit that BMG represents part of what he has in mind: a place for MA-focused political junkies to visit, say what’s on their mind, and find out what other like- or not-so-like-minded folks are thinking. As such, this place brings together the collective knowledge and wisdom of a significant number of people who together know an awful lot about local politics, and a fair bit about other interesting things as well. I know I’ve learned a lot from reading what’s written on this site, and I certainly hope others have too.
But this site is of course openly partisan, and its principal goal (as far as I’m concerned) is in the short term to help put a Democrat in the corner office on Beacon Hill, and in the longer term to work for the reinvigoration, decalcification, and reform of the state Democratic party. Lydon is after something different, though I confess I’m not sure exactly what (and I don’t think he is either). I think he is perhaps looking for higher-brow stuff than we serve up here, perhaps authored by folks with actual qualifications. He’s also looking for topics beyond politics – he wants the best of New England’s culture, sports, science, and philosophy, as well as politics, all under one “Common” cyber-roof. And he wants some degree of participation by the readers, though its nature and extent remain vague. (Those of you who were there: have I captured more or less what you heard Lydon going for? Chris, if you’re reading, have I got it right?)
A tall order. What say you, gentle readers? Can such a thing be assembled? Who would write for it? And, perhaps more importantly, who would read it? Would you?
I think you captured the flavor of the dialogues (plural) between Lydon and those in the room. I tend to agree with you that there was a certain amount of honest confusion as to what was being striven for on everyone’s part, including Lydon’s (as he would probably be the first to embrace).
<
p>
As to your final question: No, I probably wouldn’t be a regular reader. I still read the professional journalists for news and for the other stuff I enjoy exploring the smorgasbord of what multitudes (might I say ‘metatudes’?) of variegated communities post to the Internet. Maybe I’m a slow learner, but I have trouble seeing how this would be more than just another community among many with overlapping constituencies. It might be of higher quality in some respects, but part of the fun of surfing is to rely on my own instincts to ferret out quality, which time and again I find in unexpected places.
<
p>
Quality is, of course, a highly subjective term. And the value of such a “Common” – even limited to one geographical area – would largely be a function of what the gatekeepers (aka editors) bring to it. So if Lydon (whose sense of what is interesting I greatly respect) or anyone else wants to launch such an enterprise, I say go for it. Figuring out the best way to build in reader participation might actually be where the most creative work would be needed. (I like what I’ve seen of the SoapBlox model.) Ultimately, having consistently high quality content will attract eyeballs. I guess the question is how would you define the critical mass at which you could legitimately invoke the word “common.”
is the part that would keep me from reading it.
My problem with talk radio, including ‘progressive’ shows, is that often enough the people interviewed may have degrees, titles, and/or have written books, but they do not necessarily know a lot. And the people who dare to call in can have their questions ridiculed and dismissed pretty easily. This does not make for a ‘NE Common’.
I am not comfortable with how, in general, we ( who is this ‘we’?) decide who is an authority. That’s part of why I like reading BMG – few people here dismiss others’ opinions as invalid because of our credentials or lack of them. (This slides easily into the discussion about whether or not we blog anonymously… )
I’d have to agree, at least in part, with Jane’s comment above. Me, I don’t understand why “actual qualifications” are necessarily needed in many areas.
<
p>
Some areas, yes: Economics, perhaps science/technology… In these areas at least some qualifications tend to be necessary to understand what’s going on. Can you explain the significance of the Fed stopping publication of M3? Well, neither can I. I can wave my hands a lot and it might sound convincing, but ultimately you need some grounding in econ to “get it”.
<
p>
Most other areas, not so much; I can expound on the Sox’ performance this season (13 wins in the last 14 games! Woot!) without much in the way of “qualifications”; ditto for good/bad movies or nightclubs or hotels for a getaway. “Qualifications” might significantly raise the chance of my writing be interesting and intelligent, but they are in no way necessary.
<
p>
So, what I’d rather see is a sort of “peer-reviewed” site where folks earn their own qualifications (probably through some sort of ratings system). If you consistently write interesting, smart, thought-provoking stuff I could care less what your qualifications are, for most areas. I’m not sure how one would handle the exceptions I mention above.
Democracy is completely dependent on “non-experts” making decisions about matters of great import. No one has enough information to be an expert in everything that goes into a voting decision. I like to think of blogs as a way for jes’ folks (even PhD jes’ folks) to explore issues interactively, and without the top-down credential mongering that goes on in a university- or talk-radio setting.
…as he regularly demonstrated on The Connection before he was let go. He would interrupt both guest and caller, to put forward HIS bright idea like a a child who sees a shiny new toy and can’t WAIT for those other tedious voices to stop droning on so it will be HIS turn to talk again.
<
p>
I have a pretty shrewd idea who will be deciding who ‘qualifies’ to be a real participant in Lydon’s cyber-world. The more abstruse the qualification, the better in ever-so-twee Lydon Land.
<
p>
Ah, well. Perhaps there will be an opening for Town Drunk.
I was one of the people who left early from Lydon’s talk. I felt a lot like I was at an inaugural meeting of a club that I wasn’t going to be asked to join.
<
p>
There’s a guy in Hatfield who has started a new magazine called New England Watershed, which I’m quite interested in. It is perhaps misnamed, because it focuses mostly on the Connecticut River Valley, conveniently leaving Boston aside.
<
p>
I think what is cloying about Lydon’s idea — at least as he was able to articulate it — is that he wanted to marry a bottom-up technology like blogging to a top-down editorial model with what Charlie called “star power.” And all of his references were to big Boston institutions, like Harvard, the Globe and the BSO. He would backtrack and say things like wanting to get smart farmers involved, but it seemed pretty clear that what he wanted was an old-school “Camelot” sort of Boston as the Hub of the Universe.
<
p>
That’s fine and all, but as Morrissey once sang,