Blogging: Is it first draft journalism?
A little over a week ago, a blogger who goes by the name K T Cat wrote a post about the Blogworld Expo, a tradeshow, conference, and media event devoted to blogging. In the post, K T Cat included a few sentences that sparked outrage and cries of racism from other bloggers. “Blacks in America have become the perfect laboratory for the consequences of annihilating traditional sexual mores,” the blogger wrote. “At 70% illegitimacy, they have destroyed civilization at the molecular level. Still think it doesn’t matter? Live it up, guys. Enjoy.”
But not long after that post hit the web, those controversial sentences were removed from the post, along with all reader comments that referenced them. A person visiting that same post now wouldn’t know that the above-mentioned statements ever existed. In a blog post published a few days later, K T Cat wrote, “I’ve been deleting one or two of my old posts and portions of just a few others lately. For me, this blog is as much an artistic expression as it is a recording of thoughts and interactions with friends. Painters remove some unwanted brushstrokes and poets rewrite lines. The end goal is a work that expresses you and not the steps it took to get there.” In further rationalization, he defended his decision to remove comments also. “I’ve been going through my comments lately and getting rid of some of them as well,” he wrote. “A blog is kind of like a party in that you prepare entertainment and (intellectual) food for your guests (readers) and they respond socially through the comments.” His analogy then went on to conclude that the deletion of comments is the equivalent of never inviting these guests back to your home.
Now, this blogger is obviously engaging in intellectually dishonest rationalization, but he still managed to highlight an important issue in the blogosphere: Once a post has been published, should it be considered a finished draft?
This question leads to an immediate follow-up: What is the most intellectually honest way to publish corrections?
There are three options that immediately come to mind. In the first, the blogger, like K T Cat, deletes the text entirely. The argument for this, I guess, is that blogging is a form of “first draft journalism,” and hitting the “publish” button is not the equivalent of publishing something in print form.
But though this would stop the flow of misinformation to new incoming readers, it does little to correct the damage already done. It also allows bloggers to rewrite their own histories, in a way.
The second option would be to use the strike-through feature. This acknowledges your mistake, allows the reader to see what was originally written, and corrects a wrong. But still, this is just an extension of the “first-draft journalism” approach. It disrupts the flow of the entire composition and creates confusion. It’s also an aesthetic nightmare.
The last option is a nod to “old journalism” with a few added benefits: Create your standard correction and place it at either the end of the post or in a brand new post. Place an “update” at the top of the offending post with a note and a link to the correction. This not only allows your reader to know that a mistake was made — it also corrects the mistake without disrupting the flow of your final draft.
In the example of K T Cat’s offending post, I don’t think that any actual factual errors were made. Instead, the blogger wrote something that many found offensive, and, possibly out of shame, he deleted it. Perhaps the best choice for him would have been to create a new post and — in an intellectually honest fashion — apologize.
***
Related posts:
1. Old issues of Boingboing reviewed
2. I certainly could use $100,000
Yo! Thanks for the link!
First, what I wrote is hardly gone from the web. Plenty of others have recorded it and kept it and link with it. Good for you! I didn’t like what it did to my blog, so excised the whole thing. So sue me.
And now I’m supposed to apologize? For what?
I’ve got over a decade’s experience in business case analysis, advanced degrees in mathematics, a thorough knowledge of statistical analysis, 16 years as a parent both within a marriage and as a single father and I have a good understanding of the mechanisms of meshed network breakdowns which can be analogous to societal breakdowns. I applied that background and knowledge to statistical facts.
So I’m apologizing for what, exactly? I determined that the people objecting were so deficient in their basis for analysis and so completely out of control in their reactions that I was either going to have to dedicate myself to educating them or remove the whole silly thing. I chose the latter.
Big freakin’ deal. If I’m some kind of a racist, then it will come out in the rest of the blog. That is, unless you subscribe to the animist theory of racism, that it is ever-present all around you, but somehow utterly invisible. I’ve got over 1,400 posts at my blog. Fish around and find some more racism. It’s got to be there. I write about all kinds of things.
I’m glad you’ve got rules and standards. I’m glad you apply them to yourself. I have different ones and I’m old enough and experienced enough to appreciate yours without having to apply them to myself. The whole mess was taking my blog in a direction I didn’t want to go and I could not see any way to appease the screamers. I removed it. I’m sorry it bothers you, but it doesn’t bother me. Every time I think about it, I’m happier I did it.
I think that’s enough explanation. Have a nice day.
K T Cat, thanks for your response. Please note that I never called you a racist in my post. I said, “K T Cat included a few sentences that sparked outrage and cries of racism from other bloggers.”
I did, however, make a judgment on your decision to delete your comments. Whether you had a hard time expressing your thoughts in an understandable manner is irrelevant, I think. By deleting the text, you are distancing yourself from your own rhetoric. This revisionism hurts your credibility as a blogger. The fact that your words are still present on other sites, including this one, does not suffice. In my mind, anyway.
So essentially, your argument boils down to one of two things. Either:
A. Content is sacred and should not be removed, or
B. Content that enraged maniacs find offensive should stay because the enraged maniacs are writing about it and screaming.
Neither of these are persuasive. If A is true than all unfunny trash I’ve posted while trying to be funny would still be there. If B is true, then I am hostage to crazed screamers. Since you don’t seem to be bothered by my removal of some previous “Transrodental Meditation” posts, but only by the removal of one which elicited screaming from maniacs, it would seem that B is really your position.
I don’t visit the local insane asylum to get help picking out kitchen tile patterns and I don’t give editorial priveleges over my blog to slavering, rage-filled crazies. If I want content gone, that’s a good enough reason for me.
Like most arguments of this kind, your use of verbs, adjectives, and nouns is as debatable as your actual argument. For instance, your use of the words “held hostage” — how are they holding you hostage? You also use emotionally charged subjective words like “enraged maniacs” and “crazed screamers.”
You then claim that my “argument boils down to one of two things” — making your entire argument hinge on the assumption that this statement is true.
Arguing with you is too time consuming if I have to spend an exorbitant amount of time to merely debate your terminology before even diving into the argument itself.
Hmmmm, oh, excuse me…..Hello Simon!
I’m a bit late to this party, but I have read a bit of KT Kat’s writings, I don’t understand a bit of it, guys’ got it on regarding internet protocols and business, can’t stand the fact that he’s a Patriots fan, really enjoy his pictures of his cat and the sunsets……..
I understand and relate to his “single Dad” posts, cooking for guys and probably most of all his political and social views.
This Man has a heart. I’ve read his post, knew immediately that it was going to cause a firestorm from certain sectors, and knew that he was going to have to pull it down.
Kinda like the book “Taboo”, about the genetic differences between athletes and there physical anthropology. Great book, scientifically strong, but…….it dared to talk about differences. The Horror.
My point, you’ll please excuse the rambling, (I have trauma induced ADD), but Bill Cosby has been citing the same statistics for decades now. And admonishing young men far more harshly than Mr. Cat did.
Why do you suppose that is? Hmmmm, (sorry again), but how much melanin do you suppose Mr.Cat has in his skin? I personally don’t know, and I don’t care whether he is Blue or Red.
It just “seems” to me that rather than attack the Source, it would seem more prudent to attack the “facts” as quoted.
Speaking of “sources”, I’m not a very good one. I simply write a silly little “fix myself and have some fun” blog, of no real interest to anyone.
Oops, wandered again. I hope you got the gist of my thought. Thank you for allowing me into your “home”.
Regards, Wollf
Re: wollf
Like KT Cat, you have for some reason read my post and have somehow concluded that it attacks him for his controversial statements regarding race. Such is not the case. Read it again.
Simon….Ummm, ADD, remember? No way can I read it again. A lovely little “excuse” and source for humor.
Please allow a clarification. I did not mean to imply an attack by you “Simon”, so much as the “you” of the blogosphere.
Simply restated without any pronouns:
It is always a wiser course to attack the “facts” rather than the “source”
G’nite, Simon,
Wollf
Simon…gaze into your future..
KT Cat:
I don’t understand how you can rationally rely on the hey-I-delete-unfunny-posts-I-originally-thought-were-funny as a suitable analogy to what occurred with this clearly inflammatory post you removed after, well, you got flamed.
Removing a post because you admit it was somehow wrong (e.g., unfunny) is not the same as removing a post you adamantly refuse to admit was wrong, and indeed continue to defend.
It appears, prima facie, that you can’t handle the predictible backlash of making a controversial statement.
Making a powerfully sarcastic statement about a sensitive issue (i.e., the rhetorical flourish “Enjoy it!”) and then whining about other people’s rage only makes you appear even more ridiculous.
If you believe you were right to make that controversial statement (and by the way you continue to vehemently defend yourself, it seems clear that you do), then why did you remove it?
- jlo
Hey Simon, we’re famous!
I know I’m late to this party but I found this today through Jon Swift’s link, so I hope a few quick comments are not out of order.
I’d say asking if blogging is “first draft journalism” misses the target because a blog post is not really either a first or final draft - it’s a public statement. It’s something you have said out loud to anyone within hearing range.
Which relates to what K T Cat did. Realizing you have said something foolish or embarrassing or even something you hold to be true but just don’t feel like arguing about and either apologizing, explaining, or going “look, let’s just drop it, okay?” are fine. But by deleting the statements and all related comments, what K T Cat did was try to deny he had ever said it. And that is intellectually dishonest - especially because, as jlo noted, he continues to defend it.
(Sidebar: Actually, he didn’t defend it, he used the “reference to authority” dodge, declaring his supposed expertise rather than the actual facts of the issue to be the deciding factor. On the other hand, since the contention at issue is not the raw number - 70% - but the conclusion drawn from it - “destroyed civilization” - his claimed skill at math and statistical analysis, even if wholly true, is wholly irrelevant.)
Interestingly, the one time I had to issue an actual correction of a post (linked here) I used much the method you suggest. When I edit or change a post, I put “Updated” in bold type at the very top of the post and at the end explain what changes were made. Usually, it’s something like clarifying some garbled language or adding a link.
One time, however, I misquoted someone as having said something he had not. He protested, I checked, he was right. So I deleted the quotes, updated the posts, and noted at the end that I had wrongly quoted him and the incorrect material had been removed from the post.