![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdI think this post-mortem is going to span a couple of posts. I could be wrong, but we'll see. I'll write them as they come to mind. This is the first, a personal-performance post-mortem.
One of the key aspects to any campaign of any sort in a democratic republic is the building of large-scale popular support for any side of any cause. One of the problems with the mainstream media is a continuing and callous disregard for the truth, substituting in its place a laughable expression of "balance," where any two sides of any argument are equally valid, or, in the political media, the stuffing of any reality into the same small set of basic stories the media have been telling about politics in the US for the last 30-plus years. Another is in the control by major news organisations by a rather limited set of individuals and groups who contribute so much to the political class.
The web has been touted as a necessarily replacement, or, at least, provoker of reform. And that potential is actual; it's had a real effect, though not nearly as much of one as one might have hoped as yet. Reporters - particularly the stars - are getting a lot more direct and confrontational reaction, with bloggers and the like taking apart the bullshit in their stories in ways they've not been seeing in some time - at least since the major consolidations happened. They don't like it, but so far, they don't dislike it enough - or rather are not affected by it enough - to change how they behave. C.f. the entire illegal domestic propaganda scandal, to this day as far as I know completely not covered by the television media, still by far the single largest source of news for Americans. And that made the New York Times, the embodiment of establishment print media. It's shameful, but they've successfully ignored the story to death.
There are a couple of ways the interactive, internet-based medium of blogging can create actual effect. One can build up a large direct audience (c.f. Greenwald, Sullivan, Redstate, Balloon Juice, and so on), or one can get by on a smaller core readership if you can establish your messages as memes - maybe only so many people read you, but they pick up the message, and repeat it, carrying on to others. Then at least some percentage of those people must act.
This is what I was referring to when I mentioned earlier, immediately after the FISA failure, that I do not matter. I'm quite capable of laying out the data, explaining it, and putting dots together to form a conclusion. I have a depressingly good track record at this, if I might take a moment to compliment myself. But being right is completely irrelevant in this type of situation if you can't prompt others to act with you, or, better, prompt others to prompt still other people to do so.
I have quite solidly demonstrated that I am incapable of doing either, and for that, I apologise. Yes, in the 90s, I had some success with a very small, very tightly focused mailing list that you couldn't get on if you didn't promise to pass the data along to organisations which could act on it. I was able to help shape a local media message with some of this data, and I was able to provide information to groups of of people already set up to be actors on these topics. But that was, for the most part, a collection of already-active groups who simply didn't have the intelligence-gathering capabilities I had. I've been unable to replicate that success, or build either of the two new types.
First, I've been entirely incapable of building a readership large enough to matter. Or rather, I should say, I haven't been attractive enough on these topics to build one. I've stayed at or under 350 unique hits per page now for two years, with surprisingly little fluctuation. I don't know what percentage of those viewers actually read these things, or just skim, or are just here for the flower pictures, or economics, or whatever. And a tiny, tiny percentage - I'd say somewhere on the order of 3-5% - actually take action. (This is in terms of what I really know, what people have told me, and such.) This could be a higher number, invisibly to me.
I've similarly failed to present information in such a way that causes that information to be spread online, which for these purposes is where it matters. (Talking about this with friends over beer is nice, but doesn't really advance the meme much, as it certainly dies there.) As far as I can tell, only 1-2% or so of the people reading these writings ever pass them on to anyone else; links back in my friendslist are exceedingly rare, and I don't see the readership growth I would see if this were going on substantially more frequently than I realise. In short, it's simply not happening enough to matter.
I'm more than willing to take a substantial portion of the blame here, in that I can present the data as much as I want, but I clearly have no idea how to push the psychological buttons necessary to provoke the right kinds of reaction. This doesn't surprise me, for reasons I won't get into here; suffice to say that I'm well aware of this problem.
I had, on the other hand, hoped that the facts of the matter, presented reasonably clearly and well-sourced, would be enough to convince others to act on their own. Clearly, for most people, this hasn't been the case. I can think of several possible reasons for this:
In summary, the key takeaway points for me personally are:
One of the key aspects to any campaign of any sort in a democratic republic is the building of large-scale popular support for any side of any cause. One of the problems with the mainstream media is a continuing and callous disregard for the truth, substituting in its place a laughable expression of "balance," where any two sides of any argument are equally valid, or, in the political media, the stuffing of any reality into the same small set of basic stories the media have been telling about politics in the US for the last 30-plus years. Another is in the control by major news organisations by a rather limited set of individuals and groups who contribute so much to the political class.
The web has been touted as a necessarily replacement, or, at least, provoker of reform. And that potential is actual; it's had a real effect, though not nearly as much of one as one might have hoped as yet. Reporters - particularly the stars - are getting a lot more direct and confrontational reaction, with bloggers and the like taking apart the bullshit in their stories in ways they've not been seeing in some time - at least since the major consolidations happened. They don't like it, but so far, they don't dislike it enough - or rather are not affected by it enough - to change how they behave. C.f. the entire illegal domestic propaganda scandal, to this day as far as I know completely not covered by the television media, still by far the single largest source of news for Americans. And that made the New York Times, the embodiment of establishment print media. It's shameful, but they've successfully ignored the story to death.
There are a couple of ways the interactive, internet-based medium of blogging can create actual effect. One can build up a large direct audience (c.f. Greenwald, Sullivan, Redstate, Balloon Juice, and so on), or one can get by on a smaller core readership if you can establish your messages as memes - maybe only so many people read you, but they pick up the message, and repeat it, carrying on to others. Then at least some percentage of those people must act.
This is what I was referring to when I mentioned earlier, immediately after the FISA failure, that I do not matter. I'm quite capable of laying out the data, explaining it, and putting dots together to form a conclusion. I have a depressingly good track record at this, if I might take a moment to compliment myself. But being right is completely irrelevant in this type of situation if you can't prompt others to act with you, or, better, prompt others to prompt still other people to do so.
I have quite solidly demonstrated that I am incapable of doing either, and for that, I apologise. Yes, in the 90s, I had some success with a very small, very tightly focused mailing list that you couldn't get on if you didn't promise to pass the data along to organisations which could act on it. I was able to help shape a local media message with some of this data, and I was able to provide information to groups of of people already set up to be actors on these topics. But that was, for the most part, a collection of already-active groups who simply didn't have the intelligence-gathering capabilities I had. I've been unable to replicate that success, or build either of the two new types.
First, I've been entirely incapable of building a readership large enough to matter. Or rather, I should say, I haven't been attractive enough on these topics to build one. I've stayed at or under 350 unique hits per page now for two years, with surprisingly little fluctuation. I don't know what percentage of those viewers actually read these things, or just skim, or are just here for the flower pictures, or economics, or whatever. And a tiny, tiny percentage - I'd say somewhere on the order of 3-5% - actually take action. (This is in terms of what I really know, what people have told me, and such.) This could be a higher number, invisibly to me.
I've similarly failed to present information in such a way that causes that information to be spread online, which for these purposes is where it matters. (Talking about this with friends over beer is nice, but doesn't really advance the meme much, as it certainly dies there.) As far as I can tell, only 1-2% or so of the people reading these writings ever pass them on to anyone else; links back in my friendslist are exceedingly rare, and I don't see the readership growth I would see if this were going on substantially more frequently than I realise. In short, it's simply not happening enough to matter.
I'm more than willing to take a substantial portion of the blame here, in that I can present the data as much as I want, but I clearly have no idea how to push the psychological buttons necessary to provoke the right kinds of reaction. This doesn't surprise me, for reasons I won't get into here; suffice to say that I'm well aware of this problem.
I had, on the other hand, hoped that the facts of the matter, presented reasonably clearly and well-sourced, would be enough to convince others to act on their own. Clearly, for most people, this hasn't been the case. I can think of several possible reasons for this:
- People think I'm making things up, panicky, or simply overreacting. I know this is true in the case of some readers. I have a long history of providing links back to my sources; I can't make up the minds of other people for them. I explain myself as best I can, but I can't overcome resistance to data in peoples' minds.
- People in my readership understand and actively support what's going on. I again know this is true for at least some of my readers.
- People in my readership understand what's going on, oppose it, but feel any action they could individually take is pointless. This is self-defeating, particularly since if all they do is act on their own, it's pretty much true. That's where the meme thing comes in. But I don't know what I can do about it, since, demonstrably, I am not capable of triggering relay of the data.
- People in my readership understand what's going on, oppose it in theory, but will not be prompted to act until they feel they, themselves, are personally threatened. This is also something I know to be true for at least some portion of my readership. As I consider actions, rather than statements, the most important measure of someone's position (c.f. my distaste for the Democratic Party as an organisation), I personally interpret this as most people being basically okay with the situation as it stands. It may not be the preferred state, but it's a reasonable state.
In summary, the key takeaway points for me personally are:
- I have been unable to provoke significant action with the methodology which best suits my talents.
- I have similarly been unable to provoke propagation of data with that methodology.
- The actions I am protesting themselves, even when well-documented, are not sufficiently important to the overwhelming majority of my readership to provoke either of these reactions.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-19 11:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 12:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 12:50 am (UTC)January, 2009 can't get here soon enough.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 01:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 02:24 am (UTC)Being in touch with a few others of like mind and like propensity for background organising, I may confidently state that at least those amongst lurkers personally-known to me do pass along -- or where it makes sense respond directly on the basis of -- significant information that you have collated and thus sent forward. Journalling, in formats which you are using, has signal advantage over activist-lists in that it may reach people (like said lurkers) whose locations are not immediately known by you. That helps magnify messages' effectiveness by breaking them free of social frames which would otherwise be imposed upon them.
Having said that, I may also fairly note that some of those who quietly make use of your output may well self-silence out of concern for third-party retribution. However, as you yourself have frequently argued, we are small fry indeed, not worth harassing until or unless we fall under the microscope of the vetting process, whether by private employers, parastatal organisations, or agencies. Having many times faced that lengthy, involved and sometimes personally-lysive process, I can assure you that it produces a strong disincentive against open expression of non-mainstream opinions.
I am not sure that existence of quiet follow-ups to your pass-alongs is cause for smugness: we do live in difficult times, and smugness is premature. However, overall cultural struggle is far from over, and we may yet be surprised both for good or for ill.
It would be premature, and counter-productive, to concede defeat.