Wow. No criticism on this one. :-)

Lewis, what do you think on relationship between actual knowledge/position and reactions by bloggers/writers/commentators/authors?

Often I get a feeling that bloggers which want to position themselves in certain area are more aggressive and take criticism worst. The true professionals on the other hand are much more accepting and trying to debate.

Yet again it's only my feeling. :-)

On long term, I still don't see much difference between internet and classical media regarding communications and marketing.

On the net, there's just too much "everyone can be...". No, not everyone can be. Only some can be. Others don't have the skills/talent/knowledge/finance to do it.

Dusan,

I have only run into a handful of bloggers (actually I can recall but one) who took something I wrote personally, and as Joe says in his book, it is how we react to criticism that counts most. Other than that, I have seen some anger but in nearly every instance, the anger came out of passion and lasted no more than a day. There are exceptions, where people have been threated and called horrible names. Again, that says more about the attacker than the attacked.

That said, I agree with you: "Often I get a feeling that bloggers which want to position themselves in certain area are more aggressive and take criticism worst." Those bloggers are often more interested in their brand than they are their readers and the last thing they want is to be mentioned in any way that isn't warm, fuzzy and complementary.

Lewis, so many gems in this particular post. As a blogger, publishing your ideas is risky for the reasons you describe, but I believe the rewards far outweigh the risks of offense.

Along the lines of CK's comment, iron sharpens iron.

Paul,

You are so right. But often anything worthwhile comes with a risk. The blogs I read most often are so that are willing on occasion to tackle icons and tought issues. They are the ones that have a chance to make a difference.

Sorry readers for the typos above: My excuse--the mucous monsters invaded my entire being over the weekend.

"On the other hand, when we write and receive mostly praise, it likely signifies that we are reinforcing ideas held by many, which frankly does little to add to the discussion."

Would this be a bad time to tell you that I agree with you 100%? ;)

Cam,

This is a perfect time to tell me that. But we need to keep it between ourselves.

Lewis,
My first impression after reading the title, was that this post was going to be about the struggle of creating and maintaining a useful blog. Getting readership, let alone links, is not for the faint of heart.

But, this is still a great post. In addition to the way we handle comments, finding balance in tone is very difficult. No one wants to read corporate drone #437's blog, but at the same time if you sound like Jeff Spicoli you don't really establish yourself as an authority.

I wouldn't want to comment and not address your point, though:

The way I would sum this up is: how you respond to comments means more about your character than the tone of your posts.

...and ultimately, your character is your brand. People won't read you if they don't like your character.

Michael,

You're right Michael, people won't read us if they don't like our character. Thank you!

Great post..without dissention, life gets pretty boring. Nothing spurs me on more than a good (yet maturely managed) argument.

Lewis, that's exactly why I was initially so fired up about the MarketingProfs Book Club. I remember, during the first segment, getting into a pretty interesting and heated discussion with a few other members.

In the end, the discussion turned us into friends – and established right off the bat that we could disagree with one another in a healthy way.

Dawn and Mark,

If we can't argue and dissent respectfully without holding a grudge, we set ourselves up for a pretty dull life and one where we never change our minds about anything. Isn't that called arrogance?

Dissenting opinions are something the MP Daily Fix could benefit from.

98% of us sing from the same hymnal. We are cut from the same cloth. Birds of a feather flock together.

{Insert your "of-the-same-mind" cliche here.}

Lewis, as always, you present thought-provoking ideas. I agree with most comments here. The only thing I'd like to add is that sometimes, bloggers' "truths" are not necessarily fact. They can be passionate about a topic, but need to be careful that their posts - especially on newsworthy topics - are based on fact and not opinion.

Take the daily news, for example. When Heath Ledger died, traditional media reporters advised the public not to believe the bloggers because many comments were not based on fact checking. This is where the difference lies between blogging and traditional media. There has to be a level of accountability to the public, as best as one can hope for.

John,

I think there is some amount of dissension within the comments here. That said, more dissenting views would be useful here and at most blogs. Maybe we should read more political musings for our daily dose of dissension. I think sometimes, maybe often, writers fear criticism. In fact, there are some writers, both here and at there own blogs, whose writing seems to be crafted so the writers themselves can be seen authorities. Those writers always shy away from writing anything that might prompt dissension. I think of those writers as caring more about their own egos than their readers wants and needs. However, those same writers often get lots of link love and list recognition, so one could argue that they are excellent at marketing.

Elaine,

I agree regarding fact checking. But at least some of what those of us in consulting do is based on philosophy, not fact. Research is often useful but also often paints different views of the same picture. So in our business world, opinions are valuable for without them we would march in lockstep to the beat of the loudest drum, eliminating the great potential inherent within change and flexibility.

I agree Lewis -- we have to be grown up enough - and secure enough - to accept disagreement and criticism. At the same time, it's important to be careful not to let disagreements decline into pettiness and personal attacks.

I agree with Elaine that we need to be careful with facts, and unfortunately, some things we find on the web may not be the most reliable. Even mainstream media can get caught. Agence France Presse seriously misquoted the late Benazir Bhutto's son because the reporter pioked up something from Facebook. Turned out, the Facebook profile she looked at was not Bhutto's son, but instead a fake profile.

David,

You are right--we do need to be careful with facts. I am sure that at least once in my writing career I have been guilty of spreading an urgan legend or two. And, of course, pettiness and personal attacks are unacceptable in any social environment, including this one.

Lewis, I hate to agree but you have it exactly right. :-)

Yup, it sure builds muscle all right; the writing, commenting, and practice. My muscles are a little weak, though I'm trying to practice more so these muscles can grow

johnmoore,
If it helps, my degree is in Biology and my prior experience is in teaching high schoolers science. So I'd say I'm certainly open to dissention and my scientific training leads me to question and examine the posts here on the Daily Fix from a different viewpoint.

That said, I find the bulk of the topics and opinions pretty darn good around here--otherwise I wouldn't come back for my Daily Fix or link to it from my own blog.

Neil, Mario and Michael,

Right back at you. Hate to do this, but I agree.

"Dissenting opinions are something the MP Daily Fix could benefit from."

Most blogs I read could benefit from this. I think what happens, especially with popular bloggers, is that they have such a good relationship with their readers, that the readers are less likely to publically disagree with the blogger, even if they do.

Personally I love it when someone disagrees with one of my posts, because it greatly increases the chance that others will comment. Which greatly increases the chance that I will learn even more from my readers.

Mack,

You get it! Popular blogs have readers who see the writers as friends (not a good thing necessarily for either the writer or the reader if that friendship reduces or lessens the honesty of the feedback) and disagreement increases the chance that we will learn from our readers.

By the way, I have seen some debates and discussions in this blog from time to time. Healthy discussion. Not toxic like I have seen on Usenet or in other blogs. That is a good thing.

Neil,

An expectation of respectful discourse has been set here. I have tried to set the same tone at my blog but it has been a bit more challenging, as my face as the owner of the blog makes for an easy target.

Oh God, I have *never* seen anything in this the Daily Fix that rises to the level of toxic discourse. Not even close.

I have been on the Internet for a while now and have seen debates (especially back when Usenet was dominant), when debates would be very personal and nasty.

I am very impressed with the civilized discussions here, which is part of the reason -- among many other reasons -- I read this blog every single day.

It is human nature to criticize others. Psychologists point that out in their studies. So once someone is talking to the world; the world can criticize.

It is human nature to criticize others. Psychologists point that out in their studies. So once someone is talking to the world; the world can criticize.

Jennifer, another phenomenon I have observed over the years is the personality change that seems to overcome some people online. I had a friend back in college when the Internet was around but not the World Wide Web (WWW).

My friend's real world personality was very mild mannered and nice.

Then he would go to Internet discussion groups (not unlike blogs but more free form) and would be really argumentative and, frankly, obnoxious. He would debate various things in a very hostile and obnoxious way that he would never do in real life.

I think that this phenomenon is still there. The obnoxious twit online says things he would never say to someone in person. Maybe it is a way of getting out hostility? I don't know.

Dr. Jekyll in real life and Mr. Hyde online.

It's always curious to me the way the bantering about of opinions is discussed in the blogosphere as though all opinions are interchangeable in terms of their validity. If I went around saying that it was my OPINION the earth is flat, I'd be laughed at. Rudely. Deservedly. And there are other, far more offensive opinions bouncing around out there which are debated politely as though the participants were discussing the weather, and it is maddening to me because if these beliefs are never challenged, lives hang in the balance. A polite discussion, for instance, of whether it is possible to avoid rape short of avoiding rapists when they do not come with identifying coloration is not particularly useful. Yet everywhere I go that rape is being discussed (and it's been in the news a lot lately, so don't look at me like that), this polite little conversation is going on.

And I want to yell at people over it, and over similar conversations. How can you just sit there chatting amicably about the ruination of someone else's life and then have the very opinions that support that kind of bad behavior presented to you on a silver platter and not haul off and fling it back in the presenter's face? What is so mature about that? Why does that garner respect from other bloggers?

It is not one hundred percent safe to administer the much-needed verbal smackdown to racists, sexists, and other adherents of bad -isms in person because bullies do not respond well to verbal smackdowns--they always escalate it into physical violence. But it IS safe to do it in the blogosphere. And the folks who are best at it ought to be the ones with the blogging clout, in my not-so-humble opinion.

And speaking of opinions, I'm beyond tired of the habit some folks have of uttering the most incredible crap I have ever heard in my life and when I call them on it, retreat behind a, "Well, it's just my OPINION and I have a right to it." Yeah buddy, but you're still wrong. Your OPINION does not determine the speed at which the earth rotates, nor the freezing temperature of water. Even opinions must be checked against consensus reality, and far too many of them are left wanting.

The other trend I absolutely hate is when a commenter has made it clear they did not understand what I wrote in my post, and when I point this out to them they inform me that I just can't handle disagreement. I can handle it just fine, if it's for valid reasons and if it's a disagreement with *what I actually said.*

Maybe people need more debate training before being let loose on the Web; I really don't know. In that case I'd be weeded out, I guess, but sometimes I think that'd be better for my blood pressure.

Oh, and one more thing...

I disagree with you that once my words are in my blog they belong to anyone but me. Copyright law... hello... and on top of that, they're still my words in my blog. That does not mean people can't disagree with me--as I said, if it's for valid reasons and if you've paid attention to what I said in the first place, I'm fine with it. It does mean they don't get to engage in character assassination against me because, for instance, I don't want to vote for frigging Ron Paul. Or whatever.

The only words that "belong to the public" are the ones produced by the federal government and the ones stored on Project Gutenberg. Sorry.