Comments
Have something to say? I don't care
Written By Justin on Jan. 3, 2007.
3 Comments
Report Note
+ Clip This
Joel Stein, writer for the LA Times, doesn't think every bit of writing has to be a discussion, and I'm with him:
Here's what my Internet-fearing editors have failed to understand: I don't want to talk to you; I want to talk at you. A column is not my attempt to engage in a conversation with you. I have more than enough people to converse with. And I don't listen to them either. That sound on the phone, Mom, is me typing. (...)
I get that you have opinions you want to share. That's great. You're the Person of the Year. I just don't have any interest in them. First of all, I did a tiny bit of research for my column, so I'm already familiar with your brilliant argument. Second, I've already written my column, so I can't even steal your ideas and get paid for them.
There is no practical reason to send your rants to me. If you want to counter my opinion publicly, write a letter to the editor. If you want me fired, write a letter to the publisher. If you want a note back, write a letter in lipstick on the bathroom mirror. Or you could just write mean things about my column on some blog. Don't worry, I'll see them. I have a "Joel Stein" RSS feed that goes straight into my arteries.
Social web, I bite my thumb at you sir.
Read "Have something to say? I don't care" (via The Huge Entity)
Nils
Written Jan. 3, 2007 / Report /
That certainly is a strong piece of writing. If you click through to his bio, though, the first sentence there says: "Joel Stein is desperate for attention". Personally I think he got a bit too desperate. Generally, people who 'have no interest' in other people, don't write articles about it; they just don't have an interest in other people...
But I also get his point. With about every site going 'hyper-interactive', maybe we do need to slow things down. I'm in this Flickr group that now has 100+ pics in it that I still haven't looked at. I keep thinking I'll have to say something nice so as not to seem rude. The result is that I'm not even looking.
He's right, we are in need of a new etiquette here, but no one's going to write it for us (luckily perhaps). Maybe we should just lean back for a while, arms crossed and not say a thing. The first words spoken after that dry spell may well be the most sensible, sweet and clever words you've heard in a long time.
Great find, but: oops, I've gone and commented again. I'm sorry.
Alday
Written Jan. 3, 2007 / Report /
Every since Stein's screed against US troops I've always felt he was an insufferable, elitist douchebag...this article only further reinforces that belief.
Oli
Written Jan. 3, 2007 / Report /
I think he has a point -- even though he's trying to make his delivery stand out by making it rude.
Does every bit of writing on the internet need somewhere attached to it where people can bitch/rant/agree at/at/with it?
Your stance on this question will depend on what your write.
If you write a blog based on your opinions of the world, you may well wish to hear the feedback directly to your little spot -- Even better, directly with the post so other people can read it along with your post and give feedback to everything.
But more and more news sites, whose job is to deliver the facts as best as possible, are allowing people to comment on the articles directly underneath them. I'm not saying that those people's opinions aren't valid or shouldn't be heard at all, instead that they should be removed from the news section completely and placed in a forum.
The more you mix user-opinion and "fact", the page gets further away from the truth you end up reading a load of mixed opinions.
We also have no idea how these things are moderated. If there was a story about Iraq: 5 people posted comments in favour of the story, 5 against; and the newspaper edited out the negative comments; you may well find yourself thinking that the vast majority of people agreed with the content.
However... If you're talking about a column -- something inherently opinion based -- you should be open for other people's opinion. He's wrong when he says "A column is not my attempt to engage in a conversation". A column is supposed to do exactly that. They're supposed to be easy to read rants/raves/stories from one person to another. About as blog as your get.
To play a game of "do as I say, not what I do" is just mildly hypocritical. If Joel Stein expects the LA Times to display Joel Stein's opinion, why doesn't he expect them to show mine?