Troppo – your portal to the best in blog reading

Want to save time and identify the best in Australian blogosphere writing?  See these features built into the recently re-designed Troppo front page. If you can’t find several excellent articles every day of the week among that lot, you’re very hard to please:

  • “Blog reading selections” at the top of the sidebar links to various human-curated “best of” features, both blog and twitter-based.
  • A bit further down the sidebar is “Missing Link on Twitter”, Don Arthur’s continually updated “best of” service.  Someone else on Twitter recently rated it as the best source for locating excellent blog writing.
  • Blogroll (now updated) – also in sidebar.
  • Bottom of front page – RSS feeds to what I regard as the 12 consistently best Australian blogs.  They cover politics, law, economics and culture/arts.

RIP LP

It’s a sad day in the Aus blogosphere.  Leading left-leaning group blog  Larvatus Prodeo has folded its capacious tent and joined the ranks of ex-parrots blogs.  Supremo senior commissar Mark Bahnisch explains the public rationale:

We collectively feel seven years is enough.

I think LP played a significant role in stimulating political debate over the course of its life, and acted as something of a catalyst for a lot of good things in the spaces of new media and public discourse.

To large degree, though, the caravan has moved on.

There’s no longer the same need for a hub for political discussion, as lively debate has migrated to social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, and as the space for opinion and analysis around the shop has widened. The fact that the ‘blogosphere’ in Australia is no longer a term that makes much sense is an indicator of that change.

I don’t want to pick a fight in the circumstances, but the last paragraph doesn’t make a lot of sense.  You can’t develop a meaningful political, social or economic analysis or opinion in 140 characters, and I can’t say I’ve noticed much of it on Facebook either (perhaps I’ve “friended” the wrong people , although to be honest I don’t use Facebook much at all so I really wouldn’t know).

As for “blogosphere” no longer being a meaningful concept, I don’t think it was ever a cohesive, identifiable entity or culture, although there was certainly a greater sense of community among the pioneers in the early days up to (say) 2005-6 or so.  However I still keep up with Australian blog writing and I have no doubt that the depth and breadth of quality material is better than ever.

Anyway, I don’t want this to become a small-minded snipe on a sad occasion.  I hope all the LP crew turn up again somewhere in the blogosphere, because each one of them wrote material from time to time that was thoughtful, different and well worth reading.

Warning - The first commenter who uses the expression “hive mind” will be banished to the naughty corner.

Update - Robert Merkel is now blogging solo at A Bent Ghost while Kim is at the Pirate Queen’s Panopticon.

Update 2 - Maybe Liam and Anna are right that Twitter and FB respectively are where “all the absurd has gone out of the grand old poliblogs”  and where the “socialising/flirting/drunk weekend conversations” have gone.  Legal tweeters have regular social meet-ups at least in Melbourne and Sydney, and I gather the same is true of other focus areas.  Bloggers used to have such functions too but they ceased long ago as far as I know.

Maybe we could revive at least some of the on-blog silliness by deliberately fostering clearly designated silly, snarky and stoushing posts.  I’m not sure I have time to write them except if I have a particular bee in my bonnet, which doesn’t happen very often these days.  I’ve fulminated multiple times over the years on just about every topic in which I’m even marginally interested.  But what about others?  Fyodor, Nabakov etc.  Rex R still occasionally raises the silly banner on high but he needs help (in more ways than one). Calling for volunteers.

Come to think of it, I was looking through the Troppo author lists just now and noted that Sophie Masson is still listed (though without an email contact).  If only Sophie could be tempted into a comeback.  She had a God-given talent for provoking extreme silliness and snark all in the same comment thread.  In fact it was a huge stoush about Sophie that indirectly contributed to Larvatus Prodeo getting started in the first place.  This one about anarchism post-dates LP’s genesis but is a vintage example of Sophie’s talents.  Ah, those were the days …

An exceptionally fine blog post …

I don’t imagine we’ll be running Best Blog Posts this year.  Certainly I won’t have time to be involved.

Moreover, we never actually anointed an annual winner in any event, just an undifferentiated group of 30 or 40 of the best from the non-MSM blogosphere.

However, if I WAS selecting a single best blog post for 2011, I wouldn’t have even a moment’s hesitation.  It would be Australian Exceptionalism by Scott “Possum Comitatus” Steel published this afternoon on Crikey. I had to stop myself from running into the street and shouting  “YES!!! EXACTLY!!! WHY COULDN’T I CRYSTALLISE IT ALL SO POWERFULLY? WHY CAN’T JULIA OR (GOD FORBID) KEV?”  It’s worth reproducing a substantial extract over the fold but do yourself a favour and read the whole thing. Moreover, although it’s a paean to Australia’s general excellence, all governments since Hawke/Keating and the Australian people generally are entitled to the credit:

Continue reading

The inevitability of blog tribalism?

Apparently some US journalism academic named Tanni Haas  has written a book called Making it in the Political Blogosphere: The World’s Top Political Bloggers Share the Secrets to Success .  I’m not interested in the subject per se, because I long ago concluded that the recipe was both obvious and inherently boring: adopt a predictable, aggressively tribal stance that will attract a loyal audience wanting to have its prejudices confirmed in a way that allows members to see themselves as the true cognoscenti without ever actually needing to think, question or doubt.

I’m much more interested in the comments of a couple of “top political bloggers” about the greatly increased tribalism evident today by comparison with the early days of the political blogosphere.   Kevin Drum, for example, says:

When I started out, there was much more of a tendency to engage with the other side.  Liberals and conservatives would attack each other, but we’d also engage with each other in at least a moderately serious way.  Today, you get almost none of that.  There’s very little engagement between left and right.  And what engagement there is tends to be pure attack.  There’s no real conversation at all.  That’s a difference that I think professionalization has brought about.  The political blogosphere has become more tribal.

Tyler Cowen agrees with the observation but has a slightly different explanation:

A good point, but I blame professionalization less than Kevin does.  Maybe some of us are simply are a bit sick of each other, and the accumulated slights and misunderstandings weigh more heavily on our emotional responses than does the feeling of generosity from working together in the same “office.”  I predict that a given experienced blogger is likely to feel more sympathy for new bloggers, but on average I doubt if the new bloggers are better or more tolerant.

Which means we mostly have ourselves to blame.

As I’ve already foreshadowed, in my view it’s unquestionably true that that there’s much less “inter-tribal” communication than there was when I first started blogging around 2002.  However I’m less sure of the reasons than Drum or Cowen.  Troppo tends even now to retain a greater level of “inter-tribal” communication than most other Australian political blogs, but it’s certainly at a much lower level than it was years ago.  I must confess I don’t miss visits from the Bolt/Blair attack dogs or their extreme left equivalents, but there were also at least a few occasions when interesting conversations actually occurred.  I have always regarded the ideals of deliberative democracy championed by Habermas and others as a tad naive, but I ‘m still attracted to the notion of “agonism” (as opposed to antagonism) propounded by Mouffe and Laclau:

Continue reading

Media Inquiry: Look forward, not back

[Cross-posted to Online Opinion]

I spend my working life running an online media firm – WorkDay Media, publisher of Banking Day – with its owner and editor-in-chief, Ian Rogers. Last month, Ian and I wrote a submission to the federal government’s Independent Media Inquiry. You can see the whole thing at the WorkDay Media site.

We’re trying to focus the inquiry a little more on what we might gain from the Internet’s transformation of communication, and a little less on what we might lose as newspapers inevitably dwindle.

It’s fairly obvious that Australians are relying less and less on information from “the mainstream media” – that is, existing newspapers, TV and radio stations. Instead they are getting and exchanging information from a far richer variety of Internet-based sources, from email newsletters to expert blogs to government and company records – plus, of course, Club Troppo.

This seems like good news. So why are we holding a media inquiry focused on mainstream media, and particularly on the newspaper industry?

The obvious answer is that the future for Australian newspapers looks pretty ugly. Once newspapers were the gatekeepers; now they are not. They are losing advertisers and readers to a fundamentally more attractive and efficient Internet. The media analyst Roger Colman calculates that “all metropolitan newspapers in print editions will be unprofitable, definitely, by 2020″.

Many of those who fear for the future of “the mainstream media” in Australia – like academic David McKnight, or publisher Eric Beecher – are concerned about how we will reproduce the activities of big newspaper newsrooms as newspapers gradually go out of business. They believe this is a very important question.

But this focus on the media past signals a failure of imagination. Big newspaper newsrooms will not be recreated in online form. Facts, news, analysis are all going to have to come out in different ways than they have in the past.

And they will. They already are. You have to be enormously enthusiastic about the old media environment not to believe this: the new media environment, for all its faults, is far better than what it is replacing.

Media thinkers worry that online sources would never have uncovered a Watergate scandal. They’re probably wrong, in every way. Now more than ever, the truth will out. Richard Nixon’s corruption was mostly uncovered by official investigators; Woodward and Bernstein, great journalists that they were, were merely conduits. In the age of the Internet, Watergate might have evolved over weeks, not years. Just in the past year we have seen yet another new information innovation – Wikileaks – whose model suggests secrets will be harder than ever to keep in the decades ahead.

There will probably be times in the future when Australia will look back at some event, some scandal, some development in the society, and say that newspapers might have done a better job than the new information sources. But we suspect those cases will be few and far between.

New online players would already be even more numerous in traditional media areas such as politics, public policy and business if not for the presence of mainstream media, particularly newspapers, whose large online presences are hugely subsidised by their traditional businesses. This is certainly the biggest bar to the expansion of many online information ventures, including WorkDay Media.

Australia has entered an age when media can be created, transformed and transmitted far more easily than ever before. Australians who believe in the importance of an informed society should treat the 2010s as an era of huge optimism and opportunity. For there is every reason to believe that the Australian society of the next 20 years will be better informed than ever before.

Facing such a future, it makes little sense to try to impose a more restrictive regime on the dwindling existing “mainstream media”, or to subsidise its continued existence. We can improve the Press Council. We can have governments make more information available to citizens. But there is no need to choose this moment to impose either a new regulatory regime or a new protection scheme.

This is a moment to embrace the information future, not to embalm the media past.

CDU Law School embraces “social media”

My blogging time over the last few days has been absorbed by creating a “social media presence” for my employer CDU Law School.  It involves not only a blog but also Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn facilities.  It’s been something of a struggle to convince the powers-that-be that it’s a good idea but we finally achieved it.  We’re even employing a consultant to teach us how to link them together to maximum benefit, given that my knowledge of Facebook, Twitter etc is fairly scanty because I’ve tended mostly to steer clear of them (apart from a desultory effort at using Twitter as the vehicle for a short-lived revival of Missing Link).

Anyway, this time a group of law academics has decided to share the load of maintaining a flow of blog posts and tweets, with admin staff moderating comment box activity.  Accordingly with a bit of luck the whole thing might be sustainable.

I will probably mostly post over at CDU Law Online for the next couple of weeks at least, with links here at Troppo.  Thus I’m drawing attention to a post I wrote today titled Catgate Unhinged.  It’s worth a read IMHO, and I’d also value any feedback readers may have on the overall site.  Feel free to post a comment too; no-one has as yet. Some of you might also be interested in subscribing to the Twitter feed which aims at abstracting a wide range of legal stories and cases each day.