Please do NOT send any Web traffic to Peter Bart, who believes that you are obsessed with your Web traffic.
By Burbanked on Sep 22, 2007 in Blogging, Movies, Views and Reviews | 1,073 views |
Sorry for the long title, but I wanted to get the first silly irony of Variety Cranky Old Editor Peter Bart’s most recent anti-blogger tirade out of the way as quickly as possible so that I could move on to other things. In the article, Bart laments the fact that his “blogger friends” are “all about traffic, not about ideas”:
“Bloggers are into ‘tagging.’ They are obsessed with ‘link bait.’ A hot item is useless unless it can be linked and Drudgified…The bloggers I know are so hungry for attention that they suffer from attention deficit syndrome. Their blogs have become a narcotic: The highs are downright beatific. Then the numbers come in and they trigger the low.”
First off: I’d be fascinated to learn who the bloggers are that Bart knows. I’m guessing that they snicker a lot when he leaves the room, having dropped self-important, dinosaur-like bon mots like those around.
But really my fascination here is with the implication that no bloggers are actually writing about “ideas”. That all of us, in our rush to run the latest Lindsay Lohan or Indiana Jones spoiler item, never bother to convey thoughts or insight or critique worth reading. If Bart is right, then over 15 million new writers haven’t managed to generate a single idea so far, in which case we really should all give it up, and it couldn’t come too soon in order to save humanity.
I won’t pause here to suggest that, in disparaging bloggers, Bart becomes the ultimate blogger troll: he says something outrageously incendiary so that we’ll all talk about the fact that he said it. Oh, I guess I just did suggest that, sorry.
In reality, it simply appears to me as though Bart is feeling the unfairness of the fact that critics and social observers are now capable of experiencing near-instant gratification of finding out that people are actually reading our material. We don’t have to wait a month until “the numbers come out”. We don’t have to meet in committee to study trends and make large easel-mounted charts with red arrows pointing up and down. Our focus groups are either reading us or they’re not. Our SlimStats, Sitemeters and Google Analytics do all of that for us and yes, Mr. Bart, that is progress, and it is public enlightenment.
I’d even pose a question or two to Bart, although it’s an empty exercise, because why would I expect him to check any of the blogs that are linking to his article? When he was starting out as a writer, could all of his peers, colleagues and competitors have been so easily discounted as “not having ideas” and being “semi-anonymous voices, all craving notice”? Isn’t he actually describing every writer who has ever lived, from Shakespeare all the way to the Farrelly brothers?
There may be a whole lot of silly, celebrity-baiting blogs out there - and occasionally, I’m one of them - but we do now live in a world in which some truly great writers have been invited to the table of public discourse.
Unfortunately, that table is becoming a bit too crowded for Peter Bart.
(Peter Bart’s article was found in all of its ironic splendor via Ann Thompson’s own Variety blog.)
Okay, now I’ll just admit that I’m trying to freshen up my sidebar a little. But this is a nifty piece of Batman-themed editing:
© Copyright
MC | Sep 22, 2007 | Reply
How many times has a figure of the old media attacked the new media? Too many to count.
Burbanked | Sep 22, 2007 | Reply
And some of those arguments are accurate - but they tend to generalize and ignore that there’s actually some quality stuff going on out there.
Ray | Sep 22, 2007 | Reply
Frankly, I see no difference between new and old media. The vultures of old media did just as much shameless self-promotion, theft, and grandstanding as any blogger.
Their gripe probably boils down to the fact that anyone who can manage to get online can be a blogger, without any of the “paying your dues” aspects that they went through.
And I actually think they have a point there. Paying your dues refines the writing process for most people, allowing the cream to rise, so to speak. Meanwhile, Perez Hilton is drawing dicks on celebrity photographs and making a fortune.
I can see why they’re a little irked.
Burbanked | Sep 22, 2007 | Reply
I’m only speaking for myself, of course, but I certainly appreciate the achievements, the milestones and landmarks made by all who have come before. I’ve paid dues - of a sort - perhaps not the same as Bart, certainly not the same as Perez, but my own. That’s all I’d claim to bring to this page and nothing more. That I and any other blogger - and smarter bloggers, better writers, with lifetimes of experience, ambition and good sense - should be summarily dismissed as having no ideas and nothing to say is simply outrageous.
Your point about Perez is well made; but I’d submit that hack writers and media stars have existed forever, regardless of the medium. Freak shows and opportunists are nothing new, but neither are grumpy old men who can’t stand to see the tide turning.
cjKennedy | Sep 22, 2007 | Reply
Methinks Mr. Bart is railing against his own pending irrelevance.
There are plenty of crumby blogs, and plenty of other good ones written by people who have or are “paying their dues”. Pete just doesn’t like it because he has no say over which is which. He can only decide for himself like everyone else.
Burbanked | Sep 22, 2007 | Reply
Oh well; as long as I get a few page views out of it…
cjKennedy | Sep 23, 2007 | Reply
You’re right Burbanked, we’ve been played by Sir Bart, yet I can’t help but think he’s rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic. His days are numbered and he knows it.
It’s true, the internet gives the power to people with nothing to say to say nothing loudly and to find an audience saying it, but it also provides an audience to smart people who aren’t blessed with a pre-established subscriber base and advertising revenue.
Though he complains about the former, I think Bart has more to fear from the latter.
soup on your tie | Sep 24, 2007 | Reply
This is exactly why I don’t blog.
I haven’t had an originally meaningful thought, ever.
Except when I decided I didn’t enjoy movie popcorn as much without butter.
Any thoughts?
Come on . . . don’t leave me hanging.
Megan | Sep 24, 2007 | Reply
cj said ‘provides an audience to smart people’
Plus enjoyment for the smart audience. My route to this blog started, of all places, at ew.com. Not ashamed of it, but very glad I’m reading this instead!
Burbanked | Sep 25, 2007 | Reply
Megan, you found Burbanked through ew.com? Can I ask where and/or how?
And thanks for the compliment, of course.
Megan | Sep 25, 2007 | Reply
When the photo of Harrison Ford In The Outfit was released there was a discussion ‘which one is your favorite’ and one of the posters linked to Windmills, because by freak chance he had just done Temple of Doom. I am an Indy geek so I had to check it out. He links to you and I liked his stuff so figured I would like yours. Was right.
cjKennedy | Sep 25, 2007 | Reply
The key I think Megan is that YOU get to decide what you click on and what you don’t and I think that’s what really bugs people like Bart who are used to being the gatekeepers.
Sure, with any mass medium things like LindsayLohansCrotch.com are going to get more than their share of attention, but if you’re at all choosy there are lots of interesting people having interesting conversations all over the place.
I’m sort of getting way off the point though. Bart isn’t wrong that traffic is a blogger’s obsession, but A) it’s not like he writes with no thought for circulation himself and B) not every blogger is a sell-out.
Megan | Sep 25, 2007 | Reply
@cj - I absolutely agree.
Burbanked | Sep 25, 2007 | Reply
cjk: Everything you’ve said in this comment string sounds like it’s come right out of my own head, but lots smarter. Thanks for stopping by - you’ve got at least one new RSS subscriber now!
cjKennedy | Sep 25, 2007 | Reply
Thanks Burbanked, and I only had to mention Lindsay’s crotch once! Chew on THAT Peter Bart!