Journalism and Blogging

To start: Voucher Ankles with a fabulous send-up up the Mike Daisey affair.

One thing I think is telling, speaking of the mainstream media, is how this whole affair exposes, in many ways, the strengths and weaknesses of the blogosphere. It's fast to the trigger.

Obviously, the blogosphere helped to get the word out that this was an important story, and drove the conversation quite a bit. It was, though, actual journalism (remember that?) which uncovered the facts that now begin to shape the truth behind the story.

It goes to the heart of the matter in many ways. As of now, blogs are a place to create a sense of urgency and activity that might not have existed beforehand. Then again, they are easily driven to a sort of distanced outrage. It's not, obviously, my job to call up public schools, write up articles, and go through fact checking. So it's my choice to take certain facts at face value, or reject certain facts, and my responsibility to respond when new facts arise. It's also a perfectly reasonable response to wait until the facts are out there before commenting on them second or third hand.

What I think Playgoer was actively responding to was the sense that this incident amounted to a mythic cultural standoff between Daisey and the Christian Right. It's noteworthy, though, that Eisler's independent response garnered as much, if not more, actual response than the incident itself. The story became, rather quickly, dissention in the unofficial ranks, from one the blogosphere's leaders, as opposed to a true interest in what actually happened.

We became far more interested in our own commentary than we became interested in what happened in Boston. Probably because argument is more entertaining (and drives more hits) than is reporting.

Perhaps that's because as the story unfolded, the facts appeared far more mundane, less sensational, and even a little depressing. This wasn't a battle about free speech, it was an isolated incident between a confused, uncommunicative school group and an artist whose work depends on conversation and a sense of openness.

I think Daisey's response was absolutely understandable. He felt accosted, hijacked, and fundamentally dismissed. He takes himself and his work seriously, and he is focused, clearly, on getting something new from this. He's a storyteller, and for better or worse, this is grist for his mill.

From what I've read thus far, though, I think the school group seemed also a bit hijacked and dumbfounded. In a restrictive and quiet setting, with no easy exit, they made a group decision that was probably one I wouldn't have made. And the individual (called only David on Daisey's blog) who acted with the most vitriol is clearly someone who needs to think hard about how he acts out in public and what he's so afraid of. Why, for example, does this man feel able to walk right up to Daisey and pour water on his work? Because, it seems, that he feels superior to Daisey or in the midst of a conflict with Daisey's choice of language and values.

I certainly don't think that everyone in that room was looking for a fight. If anything, they were looking for the doors. Maybe that's the wrong impulse...maybe for a group chaperoning students, they felt it was the only choice they could make.

Nonetheless, this isn't a case of Us versus Them. The more we can refuse that sort of language (a language the offending party, David, seems comfortable with), the more we can get to the actual conflicts. People are still afraid of certain words, certain attitudes, and that's a shame. But David, a father of three, clearly feels as if he is holding the line against a world that he sees as corrupting his kids and challenging his worldview.

If we're going to keep this kind of thing from happening, we need to address David's concerns, not treat them as so much bigotry. He needs to know that people like Mike Daisey are the good guys, people who want to spread experience and tolerance and a sense of a larger world. That's good for kids, and good for all of us.

Even David.