Blogging: readiness to share the world with others
In
Eurozine interview with Zygmunt Bauman:
"The world is not humane just because it is made by human beings, and it does nor become humane just because the human voice sounds in it, but only when it has become the object of discourse [...] We humanize what is going on in the world and in ourselves only by speaking of it, and in the course of speaking of it we learn to be human. The Greeks called this humanness which is achieved in the discourse of friendship philanthropia, 'love of man', since it manifests itself in a readiness to share the world with other men."
The above quote is important in the light of the heavy push for corporations to set up blogging posts in the wild wild web, and all this stupid talk of 'Authentic Voice' shit. Beware you fuckers. The Corporate Voice on Corporate Blogs will be Authentic and it will be Ethical and it will be Engaged and Personal and all this other crap that sounds nice but BEWARE it will not be about 'readingess to share the world with other men'.
Now. Back to being Authentic. As you were.
Warren Buffet Takes on Wall Street Journal
Here is Warren Buffett telling
Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that an article based on their interviewing him
"was seriously misleading" and Wall Street Journal responds by saying... (hold on, a bit of a background on this, this will be fun)
First of all, why even mention these events? They occurred over a year ago! - Because I was thinking about the conference that occurred at Harvard last week under the title
"Blogging, Journalism & Credibility", a.k.a Webcred which I think seriously missed the point that
Jeneane so strongly made and I shall paraphrase here
"In Blogging the Editing occurs after Publishing" -- It's like in BigJournalism - Reader is Consumer of News but In Blogging - Reader is Editor of News. Something like that, I am just making this up.
So WSJ responds -- that
"In the tight confines of a newspaper article we always have to choose which of an interviewee’s many remarks to report". -- Bada Bing. There! The nice meal portion is set aside for you. It has been edited and ready for your consumption. The News has been carefully tailored to your palate. But not so for Mr. Buffett. He writes back but not on a weblog to stir public discourse and push back on WSJ but in a letter to the Editor asking that the article be corrected. What does the editor do? Well, they publish Buffett's rebuttal, but they have the last word. (more on that later)
This is a fun story. Let's explore this a bit. It shows a couple of things. One, let us ponder journalistic credibility. Is it maybe that Journalism decides what Credibility is by choosing
"remarks to report" due to
"tight confines of a newspaper article"? - Perhaps. - Two, could it also be that Blogging deals with credibility by first blowing up the fucking tight confines and then letting ALL REMARKS be reported? - Perhaps.
The entire exchange between Mr. Buffett and WSJ is
documented on Berkshire's website in PDF files. Here is the story as I see it from dieses dokuments:
The Misquote occurred like this:Joseph T. Hallinan from WSJ goes to interview Señor Buffett. Hallinan says in Buffet's words
"that his taping equipment was not working" so he could not record the interview. The interview goes on without recording. Hallinan then writes an article published in WSJ on August 15th 2003 titled
"Buffet Suggests Property Taxes Aren't High Enough in California" (
This PDF) -- to paraphrase it goes something like this: Buffet says -
"I got me a Crib in Kalivornia das worth like $4 Million and I pay like a bit over $2 grand a year in popety taxes. Annnnnndddd - I got me a Crib in Nebrazka that's worth like only $500 thousand, which is 8 times less and I done paid like $14 grand in popety taxes for it. Can you believe this shit. I mean I should pay more taxes in Kalivornia for that huge ass Crib bro". So WSJ says Warren says: "state's property taxes need to be higher".
WSJ story travels around the world, everybody reads Buffet's words and reports.
"Yea, this dude wants to raise taxes. He is kooky!" Bada Bing! The News is consumed as delivered by WSJ. Riding on the story two days later, on August 18th, 2003 WSJ (
This PDF) publishes an Editorial titled
"Buffetting California" in which it states about Buffett that
"he opined that California's problem may be that it's undertaxed". If you read the entire editorial you will see that it does not discuss Buffett's comments, it only uses the premise that Buffett does not like
"Proposition 13, which limits property tax increases" and
"The Buffett diagnosis misses entirely that California's main problem is high-tax, high-regulation government". OK, just for the record I want to say that I read the first article (which wasn't entirely about interviewing Buffett by the way) and I will say that nowhere in there does he say anything about that. Fuck, can you believe how hard it is to dig through this PDF shit?
Buffett Responds:
On October 7th, 2003 Buffett writes a letter to WSJ Managing Editor Paul E. Steiger (
This PDF) in which he says
"your article about me, based on an interview (...) was seriously misleading". So basically something like this -
"Yeah bro, I do have that Crib you said I do in Kalivornia where I pay $2 grand in taxes but I got another Crib right next door which is worth $2 million (so that's like half of my first Crib) and I paid like $12 grand in taxes so that's like 6 times as much as on the property that's half the value, bro"
-- WooooHoooo! So this is what he was pointing to about Proposition 13. The reason why the taxes are structured this way is because the $4 mil Crib was purchased in the 1970's and the $2 mil Crib in 1990's and because you can't increase taxes by more than 2% you pay less taxes the longer you own your home. Buffett continues -
"there was no mention in the story of my second home (...) nor any mention of tax inequities within California. Instead, the headline, the body of the story and quote made it appear as if I was only talking about the difference in taxes between Omaha and California"
-- How fucking hard do you have to work on getting the reporter to report what you said? And then write letters to editors to straighten the whole fucking mess?.
"When I subsequently explained (...) just how misleading the story had been, our office received an email from Joe Hallinan suggesting that I "might be interested in doing another interview us, expanding on some earlier points." It is ironic that the reporter mentioned "expanding" my views when he - or his editor - were the ones who had truncated my views in such a misleading and unfair manner"~ Buffett from Oct 7th, 2003 Letter to Managing Editor of WSJ.
This letter was published in full by WSJ on Nov 3rd yet the final word was not to be Buffett's, it was a the Editor of WSJ who said (
This PDF):
"I respectfully disagree with Mr. Buffett. The article wasn’t misleading. His central point to our reporter was the huge disparity in taxes on his home in Nebraska vs. those on his properties in California" and then added a very famous line of BigJournalism
"In the tight confines of a newspaper article we always have to choose which of an interviewee’s many remarks to report". Fuck your tight confines then!
Buffett's final note was never published but it was posted in a
PDF format on Berkshire's website simply saying that
"... my initial point was the comparison of taxes on the two California homes (...) It’s not necessary to raise real estate taxes across the board in California. Simply correcting extreme inequities in the imposition of those taxes would provide much additional revenue for the state. This return to fairness could be done in a manner that protects homeowners with limited incomes, living in homes whose values have soared. Several proposals include such protection" ~ Warren Buffett final note responding to Nov 3rd WSJ article that published his Letter from Oct 7th
My final thoughts: None. Just read the PDF files because all articles pertaining to this are behind
Moneywall as
Tom said. All links are well hidden and you have to pay to play baby!
I wish I could introduce Mr. Buffett to how blogging adds a twist to exchanging notes with Journalists.
Thank you.
Blogging, Journalism & Credibility
From comment I left
at the webcred blog, a bit reworked for this blog post:
“It is a set of assumptions that left undistinguished will keep the stage set as it always was and thus who gets to speak and what gets to be said is predictable and inline with those assumptions, thus credibility is predefined as a unalterability of the stage sets”
As David Weinberger mentions 'The Web is a World' yet I think many people's upsets about your conference may be pointing to their grievances that you speak outside of this world in your private bunker by invitation only. The conversation you get to have is yours and on your terms. I didn’t see yet in these comments anyone addressing the fact that on the web you don’t get to control a dialog, you don’t get to control who speaks.
Perhaps this is a bit unsettling that the conference hasn’t started yet but the community is already engaged in it (even if not invited) and you probably don’t’ even know why (You do want to wake up to this fact, I beg you please.)
I like Tom’s comment where he does point to this “getting beyond this certain resistance to your aspirations derived from the formulations of your intents”
In formulating your intent could you have been a bit blind to the set of assumptions that directed your formulations? It would be a great conference to distinguish those assumptions first to see what other intent formulating could come out of this.
Parting thought on this conference’s shared motivation
“that the world of journalism is being transformed by blogging”
- I would like to think that blogging is not transforming journalism as we have come to know, a method of informing us of things that occur. In the context of method; blogging is irrelevant since it lives in a domain of commitment to reporting things that matter. Journalism has made sure it’s factual and unbiased and objective yet has forgotten that it is supposed to be a ‘Voice of what matters to our community’; in being objective and factual Journalism has lost its commitment to building our common life and expanding our common future. Blogging is recreating the commitment. Journalism may want to notice that.
I do write this with my assumption that Journalism has become a distribution system for information, a News Shipping Business whose credibility was on how fast it can inform us (as Doc Searls says “Inform is like Forming another person") without ever reflecting on Forms it’s stuffing us into. With Blogging we have created an alternative distribution for information. This perhaps is why we don’t care about Journalism any more. Journalists have become irrelevant, brokers of commodity with value approaching zero.
So to sum it up I shall quote from your ‘About’ page:
"What are the areas of common ground shared by these very different approaches (note: meaning blogging and journalism) to handling news and information?".
Wow. Look at what you are asking. You are predetermining here quite broadly that blogging is ‘handling news and information’. Perhaps a peek at the guts of the beast might reveal that blogging is foremost about giving voice to what matters to us. The fact that it’s in digital form and based on links makes us connect our concerns into a shared network of human beings caring about what’s happening to us. Handling news and information is not the name of this game.
