LJ paragrahs re: Gormangate
Note that I did not use the word "article" in the title to this post, because it’s not an article–it’s a brief two-paragraph bit that basically states 3 things:
1) Clarifies that Gorman’s "views do not represent the official positions of either ALA or California State University Fresno (where he directs the library)…" LiB’s response: Again, for better or worse (worse, in this case) Gorman does represent these organizations to both the library profession and to the "outside world" at large.
2) Gorman states that many of the personal messages he received were sent under pseudonums. LiB’s response: I wrote Gorman a lengthy personal e-mail, using my full name, title, and referring him to various blogs & literature about blogs. So did Kevin.
3) Gorman feels that bloggers felt he had the power to get them to "desist from blogging and/or….make them stop.." Note: Please, can we get just a bit more arrogance into one person? Please?
Jessamyn, Karen, and Kevin are also not thrilled with this pseudo-journalistic response.
March 15th, 2005 at 10:18 am
I’m obviously missing something very crucial here, even after reading Gorman’s original piece and many of the reactions against it, so I’ll risk going out on a limb and exciting a lot of wrath.
What I find interesting is that you, like many another in this thread here and elsewhere, are arguing against Gorman even though you are obviously not one of the “Blog People” at whom his words were aimed. Your blog is literate and informative, as opposed to the rather miserable ones Gorman obviously has in mind. And, after some fifteen years or more online, wandering through private websites bloggish and otherwise, I’m more inclined to be on Gorman’s side: most of what I’ve seen IS pretty dismal. Yet many librarian bloggers are reacting as though he meant each and every one of them.
Your assurance, above, that you signed your response in full does not invalidate Gorman’s statement that most wrote him pseudonymously. I’ll take his word for it: the Net is a pseudonymer’s paradise. As for his arrogance in feeling bloggers think he can make them “desist” — unless you’ve actually seen the messages he received, can you be so certain that this isn’t exACTly the tone most of them were taking?
Ultimately, my question is: if Gorman’s opinions about blogs obviously did not apply to yours (the general “you”, here), why take them personally? And if they DID apply to yours (again, the general “you”), perhaps you should take a closer look at the blog you are creating instead of getting angry at his criticism.
March 15th, 2005 at 11:51 am
…except that Gorman’s piece didn’t really seem to delineate between well-written blogs and junk blogs, but rather to attack the format and its practitioners as a whole, which is just plain silly.
It also got librarians ridiculed by non-librarians for its sweeping generalizations, anti-technology tone, and arrogant intellectual posturing. See the Slashdot discussion for example.
I’m not a Blog Person. I’m not part of ALA. I AM a librarian, and frankly, his piece pissed me off and made me spend a lot of time defending librarians. Gorman’s little rant didn’t apply to me personally, but it still affected me negatively.
March 15th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
As Meg’n points out, Gorman did not differentiate between good & bad bloggers, or quality and junk blogs; he generalized about blogs & bloggers as a whole. I didn’t take what he wrote personally. I know that what I do here on this blog is not at all like one of the self-important diaries or hacked journalism that Gorman was probably railing against. What he wrote, though, generalized that all bloggers were poorly-read, uneducated, and spiteful. THAT is what got me riled first.
What got me second was the anti-technology tone that his piece took, completely disregarding a new format for communication that many libraries & librarians are using well. That, in my opinion, was irresponsible for Gorman to do given his position within ALA. He represents us to the outside world as well, and this really made libraries & librarians look rather antiquated. And that’s just inexcusable on his part.
March 15th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Ahhhhh. Thank you both. Yes, I do see your point, upon a re-read of what Gorman actually said. Correctly or not, I was reading between the lines and assumed — possibly correctly — he was talking only about the unthinking bloggers who took him to task for the article re: Google. (As opposed to the thinking ones.) Hence, I didn’t quite see why the fooferall. He definitely should have been more specific and more careful in how he expressed himself, given his position. Not entirely unlike Caesar’s wife, he needs to be extremely cautious not to give the appearance of wrongthinking.
Remind me never to run for ALA president. (Not that I would. Nor that I would be elected. Or should be. Or even voted for. But if I *were* elected, I’d know better than to serve. Or to write anything while in a snit fit. ;-> )