Blogging about blogging is a terrible habit which I promise to avoid when possible.
But...just this once.
Bloggers have no "ratings" as TV shows do, but we do have stats which give us a rough idea of how many readers show up on any given day. I won't discuss numbers here. As you might have guessed, the stats of a political blog go up in the days and weeks before an election, and they dip considerably after the vote. All perfectly normal.
But the day-to-day fluctuations reveal that some subjects intrigue more than others do. And I am wondering whether the interest level should affect what I write.
Take, for example, the broad area of non-orthodox 9/11 research...
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Earlier this year, I began publishing broadsides against the "controlled demolition" conspiracy buffs, whom I consider deceived, deceptive, and just plain annoying. Even though the twin towers' fall (which occurred from the top down) did not resemble in any way an actual controlled demolition (which invariably starts at the bottom), and even though not one single expert in controlled demolitions in the entire world endorses the CD theory, and even though the makers of Loose Change have been caught flat-out lying on many points, this CD nonsense threatens to drown out what I consider the real questions to arise from that tragic event. The quickest way to access those questions would be to load 9/11: Press for Truth into your DVD player.
My orginal intention was to publish a series of skeptical pieces on various aspects of the CD theory. A few posts along those lines appeared some months back.
To tell the truth, writing those pieces did not prove easy. The research takes effort. Worse, many people committed to the CD theory have noggins composed of impenetrable stuff. They resemble Jesusmaniacs and Bush supporters in that one cannot hope to reach them through rational argument.
Yet argue they do -- irrationally, loudly, incessantly, belligerantly, stupidly, annoyingly. The blog becomes a chore and a bore when those clowns take over the comments sections. I actually had a vivid nightmare in which the spirit of an old enemy took over my dog; I interpreted this dream as a symbolic representation of my blog, temporarily commandeered by people who make my flesh crawl.
Here's the oddity which made me rethink the entire "attack the CD theory" enterprise: The comments appended to such essays may have been plentiful and pugnacious, but the stats went down on those days. My regular readers hated that stuff.
I can guess what some of you are thinking. "That's because you opposed the CD theory, Cannon. If you had endorsed it, new readers would have flocked to this site."
Nope.
Y'see, in that same period, Brad Friedman took a "working vacation" from BradBlog, during which time a guest blogger took over the store. The guest blogger -- who, in all other respects, did very good work -- was a huge proponent of the controlled demolition idea. He devoted a number of posts to the topic, even though Brad himself had generally avoided 9/11-related issues.
Let me make a couple things clear.
1. Brad had allowed his stand-in complete freedom to write as he pleased -- just as, on this site, dr. elsewhere has complete freedom to write as she pleases. (If the doctor and I should disagree on any point, c'est la vie and no problem.)
2. Although we've discussed the matter privately, I still have no idea what Brad's personal "take" on alternative 9/11 theories might be. I know that the issue simply does not grab him. His idee fixe is vo...excuse, please: election fraud. Brad would probably be thinking of that topic even if his house caught fire.
All of which brings me to my major point. Although Brad does not and should not discuss the business end of his blog with me, the Alexa site make some (not entirely reliable) tracking information available to anyone who cares to check. The stats on BradBlog went down -- drastically -- when the "controlled demolition" theory held sway during Friedman's absence. In fact, his numbers dipped below mine.
The overall lesson: All talk of 9/11-related subjects repels readers. Pro-CD or anti-CD; the stance does not matter. Blogging on that topic places a writer within a ghetto. The denizens of that ghetto are loud, emotional and combative -- but not numerous.
So. Should I continue with my 9/11 series? Should I address that issue in future posts?
And how much should I write about Litvinenko?
I'm fascinated by the mystery -- each day I print out all the new stories, which I study and annotate over a cup of finger-free Wendy's chili. I've made a few discoveries which (arguably) deserve publication. But, truth to tell, the American audience does not seem as compelled by this enigma as I am. To judge from the emails, only Europeans and other bloggers consider the subject fascinating.
And yet: Any political blogger who chooses topics based on the stats will produce vapid commentary. Ratings-driven TV shows tend to be insipid, and ratings-driven blogs will soon display the same failing.
To what extent should readers tell writers what to write?
23 comments:
To what extent should readers tell writers what to write?
Speaking as a writer (and baseball blogger), I'd say not much. My advice would be to write about what YOU like, so as to avoid making the blog become a job. Hopefully, your readers will like it too.
All talk of 9/11-related subjects repels readers. ... Should I continue with my 9/11 series?
I guess I'm in the minority. I have researched aspects of 9/11 and have written a little about it. I wish you would continue the series. I was happy when you announced it was coming.
I stay away from CD and missles because they are pretty much unprovable at this point -- and it bothers me when people run right to those aspects and seemingly ignore the many, many other avenues of evidence out there that can hang the guilty parties.
But we need more intelligent pieces about 9/11 out there (whether I agree with it or not) not less.
I am neither a blogger or a european, but I am quite interested in 'alternate' theories and research in to 9/11. I encourage you to keep writing on that subject.
I am not a CD proponent. I am very interested in the Litvinenko story. More so right now than any of the other current issues. Perhaps because I live in London now, and am British. For me, Litvinenko is the world's first instance of nukilor terrorism. The kind of stuff the "war on terror" and curtailment of civil liberties is mean to contain. I would like to know whether it was a form of state sponsored terrorism, or private terrorism. It matters to me.
If I had a blog. I would write about it all the time, if only to try and explain to others why it mattered. Grass roots advocacy if you like. So I say, the whole point of a blog is to write about what YOU think is important. We the readers will pay attention if we think you have a point and talk sense.
Im facinated by 9/11 too. Probably cos I was 10 blocks away when it happened. For me, the most pressing issues are what happened to flight 93 over Pensylvania, and what your government knew before the events took place. These issues are just as important today. So my vote is that you continue to write of it. However, in the end the point of the blog is for you to write what YOU think is important.
I will exercise my choice to read that which I think is informative.
Write what you, like when you like. Since I found your site several months ago it has been interesting and thought provoking, even on subjects I wouldn't normally search out.
I'm in the states and Litvinenko is very interesting to me.
I say post whatever interests you,without regard to site traffic. I hope that you continue covering 9/11.
joe, your readers are SO cool. very sophisticated.
of course, you MUST write what you feel is important. period. otherwise you sound like a whore. we can't have that, now, can we?
whoever here it was who said that the readers will find what they want to read was correct. you're an artist; you know how you feel when you produce something that was so just for dough that you just want to puke all over it.
i frankly cannot see you doing that. and i've found the polonium stories fascinating. in fact, daniel schorr did his little piece on just that yesterday. check it out. he described an experience when he was still a youngish reporter with cbs (i think) and was going into moscow to report on tito's visit to russia. most reporters were turned back before arriving at yalta, but he refused. the next morning, he had breakfast at the hotel, and immediately was unconscious. he was later told he was slipped a mickey. this was in 1956, and he never did discover who did the deed.
given the several individuals, including the reporter, anna politkovskaya, who have also been poisoned, not to mention the ukraine's yuvshenko, it does raise a lot of intriguing questions.
not least of which is, why is this so easy to pull off? clearly a case for valerie plame. oops; forgot....
Joe, I find no argument with those who urge you to write about what you believe in - if you don't believe in CD, don't write about it.
Yours is one of the clearest voices in the blogosphere, and I will continue to read and enjoy your commentary even when I don't agree with it.
At risk of going OT from your "ratings" topic, I suspect that the basis for most disagreement with your position on CD is WTC 7 (which, if proven, leads to questions about 1 and 2).
Proving a negative (in this case, no CD) may be impossible; in that light, asserting that it didn't happen because unassailable evidence hasn't emerged seems hard to defend.
Myxzptlk
Joe,
I enjoy your column even though there are times when I disagree with your take on events. That is or should be part of the art of blogging: stimulate your readers into thinking about the topic raised so they can come to a considered conclusion.
So continue with raising 9/11 issues, so long as you fairly present the evidence. To label supporters of CD as akin to Jesusmaniacs for example does a grave disservice to many careful researchers.
It is simply untrue that no demolition experts support the CD hypothesis and it is similarly untrue that demolition invariably commences at the bottom, although in the case of the twin towers the seismic evidence records explosions 14-17 seconds before plane impacts and the evidence of William Rodriguez among others confirms that those explosions were in the basement.
Ultimately however, it is a scientific question. Does the official story(ies) such as NIST and FEMA best fit the available evidence or, as Hoffman, Jones and Griffin among others have amply demonstrated, there is an alternative explanation and CD provides the best scientific and evidential fit.
I agree that getting hung up on the technicalities can distract from the real issues. But without an understanding of what really happened and why you cannot adequately respond to the travesities that have been perpetrated upon the American people, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. It is hardly an accident that Bush constantly invokes 9/11 as the justification for his policies.
If, as Webster Tarpley suggests, attacking the official myths of 9/11 gets more bang for the buck, an obvious payoff is the destruction of the Bush presidency and all its accompanying horrors.
I should have thought that that is an objective your website would agree with.
I'm a full on 9/11 conspiracy theorist. I don't care what anybody says about 9/11, as long as they present real evidence and are prepared to stand corrected on the facts.
What's been disappointing is the willingness of the public to uncritically accept the 911 Commission Report. Even they said they had been lied to by the US military.
Counterpunch has recently run a series of articles supposedly debugging CD theories. They shouldn't have bothered. The articles don't stand up, PhD author or not.
Here's the main objection: we accept the findings of the Space Shuttle Inquiry because the evidence was all out there for independent review. That's never been the case for 9/11.
This is what we know about the Bushies: "if their lips are moving, they're lying." You either have accountable government or you don't. As far as 9/11 is concerned we have yet to hear the real story.
I'll suppose from reading this thread that your invocation of 9/11 has repelled all but its aficionados. On the whole I think a writer should write what he wants to write, but I know from experience that sometimes writing for someone else can inspire surprising work and new enthusiasms. So I'd recommend that you occasionally engage in limited self-prostituting side-trips, even while generally staying to your own course.
I noticed your endorsement of 9/11: Press for Truth, the first good movie about 9/11. Everyone should take a look at the widows' 300 questions, 200 of which received no response whatsoever from the 9/11 Commission. Only 27 of the 300 received adequate answers.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
A shrewd person has pointed out that the nation today much resembles a dysfunctional family that doesn't talk about the child abuse. Maybe people should challenge their repulsion by 9/11.
oops, that link would be
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestion
Ratings_111904.php
There doesn't seem to be any other place where the Litvenenko story is being seriously discussed, so for my own part, have at it. The fact that "traces" of Polonium are being found virtually everywhere is not yet explained, so anything that furthers our understanding of the case will be helpful. For those of us who cannot spend the time and effort to become full-fledged afficianados of this or 9/11 or JFK (my father told me on the day JFK chose LBJ to run with him, "If I were Jack Kennedy, I wouldn't walk down a flight of stairs in front of Lyndon Johnson"), some clarifying posts from you would be quite useful.
I intended to stay out of this, but I kenj's comment struck a chord with me. Whenever the gov't (not just the Bushies) tells us anything, we know it's at the very least political spin and more than likely outright lies. So it is with the events of 9/11. We know the official story is saturated with deceptions. About Flight 93, about the miraculously-found passport, about Atta, about WTC #7, and god knows what else. Maybe even CD.
Maybe there wasn't any CD, Joe. But it sure is suspicious the way all the steel debris was shipped off to China without analysis.
Anyway, if you stop writing about what you want to, and start writing about what's popular, we readers may as well switch to Newsweek.
Even though the twin towers' fall (which occurred from the top down) did not resemble in any way an actual controlled demolition
Well, it didn't resemble a conventional controlled demolition. But neither did it resemble in any way a structural failure.
All talk of 9/11-related subjects repels readers
You can't draw that inference from the situation. Brad blog is where people go for election fraud. If Field and Stream did an issue about evolutionary biology they shouldn't be surprised that their newstand sales for that issue are down.
So go ahead: write about 9/11 or Litvinenko. Whatever you want. I just hope you keep an open mind
From the Top down.
Look at the Communications Tower.
It's the first thing to give. That
Tower is the Central Core Extended.
The core of steel encased concrete would not even have gotten warm from the amount
of fuel/oxygen burn.
And what did Cheney mean by..
"of course the orders still stand. You haven't heard anything different have you?" (To a MilOfficer in the WH by Trans
Sec F Mineta to the 911 Commission).
What were those orders?
NORAD is still lying. Where are the Virginia Highway tapes of the Pentagon.
The angle to slice off the lampposts then
level out to hit the Pentagon is impossible,where did SS Special Agent Craig Miller die, and on and on.
Cui Bono, always.
Hello again, Mr. Cannon. Thanks for your kind words.
I'm glad you thought I did "very good work" "in all other respects" (i.e.except for the WTC question). Very nice of you to say so.
Unfortunately I do have a few quibbles with other parts of your post. For example, I don't think it's fair to call me "a huge proponent of the controlled demolition idea". I'm not really a huge proponent of anything, really ... except peace, truth, and good music.
I do happen to believe the towers were demolished. So we disagree on that much. But I don't think that's such a big deal.
However, I do believe it's misleading to say that Brad's numbers went down while he was away because any particular "theory" "held sway". And here's why:
I was in Brad's "chair" for two months, beginning in the middle of July and ending in the middle of September. During that time I made exactly ONE post concerning the controlled demolition of the WTC and that was on the anniversary of September 11th -- just a few days before Brad came back!
So ... if you think something I posted on September 11th made Brad's numbers dip below yours during the period when he was gone (i.e. the previous eight weeks) then you are welcome to your opinion ... but it hardly qualifies as a fact!
Perhaps if I answer some of your other implied questions I can help you to understand why it doesn't make sense to attribute the dip in Brad's numbers to my opinion of what happened on 9/11.
1) Brad's numbers had been going down even before I got there because he had been blogging exclusively about CA-50 and a lot of people got tired of it. He has told me as much many times; he also believed it was important to give that issue as much coverage as possible, and he did so, even though he could see that it was hurting his numbers.
2) Brad Blog's numbers went down further after I got there for the very simple reason that the people who visited the blog in order to read BRAD were disappointed -- they weren't getting any (or not very much) of him. So even if they didn't go away entirely, they certainly came back less often.
BTW we both knew that would happen. We saw it happen the previous summer as well, when Brad took off for a while and left me in the chair. There was really nothing we could do about it, and we both thought it made more sense to have me "fill in" for him was a better option than leaving the blog dormant.
To make a very long story short, I don't think you can draw any conclusions from the fact that Brad's numbers dove while I was there and he was not.
Brad and I are very different and even though we agree about a lot of things, we disagree about a lot of things too; for instance I tend to blog about all kinds of stuff while Brad's blogging is much more ... um ... focused! ;-)
I can't think about (or write about) election issues all the time (otherwise I would go mad) and therefore I could never really "fill his shoes" ... so I was blogging about all kinds of stuff that Brad Blog readers weren't used to seeing there and that had to turn some of them off. Oh well. There's nothing we could have done about that. But it has very little to do with 9/11.
And there may be some hardheaded WTC demolition theorists out there but I don't think I'm one of them. I believe what I believe but you and anyone else are entirely welcome to convince me otherwise. BTW my sidebar links to "Loose Change" and "Screw Loose Change" so my readers are welcome to watch both and make up their own minds.
I've rambled on long enough ... To answer your question: in my opinion you should write about whatever moves you, and you should say whatever you want (or need) to say about it.
Joe: Your position on CD is just goofy, and your attitude is just nasty. The laws of physics make you wrong. It's as simple as that. The towers' understructures were blown first, and the buildings were riddled with explosives. It's even improper to call them collapses because they were blown up. There is NO other explanation for the speed with which they came down, or for the pyroclastic flows that came with them, nor for the distance steel members, tiny bone fragments, and other debris were ejected. Whatever vitriol you conceive to fight against them, the laws of physics will out. I know that's hard to take, but refute them all you want: IT WON'T WORK.
There are quite a few people blogging seriously about Litvinenko. So many, in fact, that I wish someone would sit down and separate fact from theory so that we might one day know as certainly as we do about the CD of the WTC what happened to him.
Okay. I went off to the store and Post Office, and a question kept wafting into my mind; to wit: Why would the popularity of such a vital question have anything to do with whether one asked it? If the truth is not popular, something few want to think about, does that make it something any of us can safely ignore?
Even if your calibrations of what made Brad Blog's numbers go down were correct, and I'm pretty sure they were not, does that mean it is wrong to seek the truth and speak about it, without regard to who likes it? I just don't think so, Joe. It just keeps seeming to me that you must be angry that certain facts don't fit what is more popular to discuss.
If we keep measuring reality by what people like to think, we are doomed. Blog popularity is not a good yardstick for what is essential to our survival.
Winter Patriot, I owe you an apology, and I owe an even bigger one to Brad.
Behind-the-scenes chats between bloggers simply ought not be discussed in public. I'm usually pretty good at keeping private discussions private; in this case, I screwed up.
I will say that -- IN MY OPINION AND IN GENERAL -- the 911 topic is one that is not popular. The guys who are into it are REALLY into it. Most others have turned their attentions elsewehre.
I wrote this post because a couple of people have privately asked me why I did not continue to blog about why I disagree with the CD theorists. There was an undertone of "neener neener neener, you can't defend your argument" in some of what was said to me.
The truth is, I don't see any point in spending hours writing stuff that will appeal only to a small readership -- an audience composed of people I don't like, people who will hate me no matter how well I make my arguments.
To br frank, I wrote this post while angry. I may not have seemed angry, but I was. Here's what occurred:
I was ticked off when I visited the Black Ops radio site and caught the gist of an on-air fracas between activist John Judge and the abominable CD propoenent Jim Fetzer. Fetzer has, in my view, fucked up royally in both the JFK and 9/11 arenas. I just don't like that guy.
I used to know John Judge -- not well, but somewhat. Despite disagreements on various issues, I admire both the breadth of his reading and the size of his heart. It pissed me off to see him treated badly simply because he recognizes that the CD enthusiasts are being foolish.
Of course, the CD numbskulls are now calling Judge a horrible awful spooooook. That sort of happened before. To him and to me. Spook-baiting is a form of thought control. It's an old story: "Goody Proctor is a witch." You know the drill.
So when I saw all that, I got steamed. And so, for a few minutes, I started to write a new piece on the CD theory.
And then I reeled back, and recalled why I the topic is best avoided.
And that is when, and why, I wrote what I wrote. I was still steamed. The steam needed an escape valve.
And, as often happens when I write while angry, I said stuff I should not have said.
So...apologies.
Oh, great. "CD numbskulls." Is a physics primer out of the question? If you think the whole argument is bunk because you don't like one of its proponents, what does that do to your ability to assimilate facts and propound truth?
Agent 99: Just go away, will you? There are NO physicists who believe in CD. At least, none who do not also believe in the efficacy of translating books using magic stones. I do not accept the claim that there can be such a thing as a Mormon scientist.
There are NO experts in controlled demolition ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD -- even in nations opposed to us -- who believe in the CD theory of the WTC collapse.
Just look at any video of an actual controlled demolition. What you will see is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what happened on September 11, 2001.
The people who have filled your noggin with this CD crap have been caught telling fibs over and over again. "Screw Loose Change" proves this. So do other sources.
Hopsicker has proven that Adnan Khashogghi is the money man behind the CD theorists. You like that sort of company?
Now go away. You are banned for life from this site. Call me a censoring bastard if you wish. I really do not care. I view YOU as the dangerous disinformationist, and I'll be damned before I see my blog become a forum for lying fucks like you.
Joseph,long time reader, first time poster :)
I'm of the type that likes to believe that they let it happen, I'll even go so far as to believe that the 19 were holding hands with the spooks until their big sendoff into the ether.
But the thing that really keeps me hangin in there, is they say they found Attas ID (passport ?) lying on the ground at the bottom of the towers after impact, but before the collapse, they said thats how they knew who was flying that plane ?
Like McVeigh, a cop just happened to pull him over heading out of OKC an hour after the Murrah went down for no license plate (after all that planning, he tries to escape in a car with no plates) ?
I guess, if they didn't know ahead of time that these things were going to happen I'll eat my hat.
No wonder why we have these theories flying around.
Post a Comment