Sunday, August 15, 2010

Silliman's Comment Monster [Part II]

 
 
 
In my previous post about Silliman's effacement of his Comment Stream archive, I reviewed what I take to be some of the issues regarding censorship--both in the public, and in the private, realms--of internet content. Obviously (or perhaps not) the liability for what any blog administrator posts does involve the issue of free speech, because service providers have to meet the same standards which are applied to all media, though just as obviously, the issues in play in Silliman's literary blog comment stream don't fall under the categories historically targeted for censorship. In other words, the decision to pass through comments for publication online is a legal responsibility each blog administrator takes on, whether s/he realizes it or not. But, again, individual blog owners do have the freedom to pick and choose, and edit out whole comments as they see fit. 
 
The decision about what to pass through, however, and what to block, involves both the potentially actionable content issues on the one hand, and on the other hand, those private criteria which each administrator uses as personal guide. A blog administrator could be sued for something by the government, or by any party alleging any kind of injury, just as any other media authority could be. Thus, defending something on a private blog site, would involve the invocation of the free speech principle, just as it would for any other media outlet. But there is no legal redress for the censure of privately administered comment. 
 
What should the criteria for censure be in the private realm--that is, for issues that don't stray into the area of specific, legal injury--but involve other principles, such as "fairness" or "balanced presentation" or the simple courtesies of privacy and decency? In my previous post, I discussed the issue of private standards of publication practice. In a free press, discussion of political and social issues carries an implied commitment to doctrines which are associated with purely ideal concepts, like free speech, freedom of assembly, and so forth. The San Francisco Chronicle, for instance, is under no obligation to present a fair and balanced version of an issue, but it does have an implied responsibility not to present biased and prejudiced views. Every responsible editor of any newspaper or periodical would likely subscribe to this view, even in cases where the content is radically biased. I realize, too, that there is no such thing as unbiased news, and that fairness and balance are not precise terms when discussing the psychological or philosophical bases for perfected debate. News is a kind of contest in which truth is defined in process: It may change from day to day, and how we think about actual events may change just as quickly. But the principle of the commitment to the aspects of a free press (and a free society), as applied to private discussion and comment, is as compelling as it would be, say, in any large, or widely disseminated medium.
 
Silliman has periodically noted the wide exposure his blog has received over the years, with visitor counts in the hundreds of thousands annually. Not all of these are separate human instances, but the numbers are still impressive, for the broadcast content of a single individual. You could even say it rises to the level of a major news organ or figure, such as that of a major daily columnist's. Silliman himself has even croaked confidently about how the internet has led to a democratization of public opinion, how opinion is no longer under the whim and sway of major news services and corporate sponsors. Certainly, this much influence and command within the internet medium implies a greater sense of responsibility than a sewing circle. That responsibility isn't a trivial thing, and should not be regarded or treated with condescension or dismissal. 
 
Literary politics can be a messy, combative, business, as Ron pointed out himself in the blog in which he announced the closing of his comment stream. Moreover, the elevated place he puts literature, as an expression of political and social forces, implies that what we say and believe about literature, is as important as anything we do in the public realm. For him, literature is a political act, carrying the same consequences and responsibility as carrying a rifle in combat, setting a bomb on the road, or attempting to assassinate a dictator. In Leftist politics, poetry is regarded as an arm of propaganda, as a tool in the revolution to free mankind from the evils of capital. At least in the theoretical sense, Silliman believes that the historical progress of literature is a dialectic in which the struggle for truth (and power) is a short-hand for the class war, and that in the aesthetic sense this means the struggle between the forces of an establishment, against the disenfranchised, the neglected, or excluded. He has repeatedly expressed a desire to see "excluded" minorities achieve recognition. This identification of political and aesthetic, is nothing new. But Silliman has brought a new conviction to the literary-aesthetic componant: The Quietist Tradition criticism. 
 
Marx thought that, given an open debate, given the revealed conflict of classes and interests, the so-called "proletariat" would win out, eventually, allowing the world to pass through into its next phase(s). There are many historical developments which Marx could not have foreseen, but later theorists, such as Adorno, and Benjamin, did identify the progress of the breakdown (and transformation) of traditional tropes, in the arts, as expressions of political change and struggle. In my view, Silliman sees himself, and his blog (and his editorial and critical work), as being an active participant in this struggle, though the specific terms of that historical debate have changed incrementally over time.
 
It's my position that political blogs, and literary blogs which are designed to engage issues that have political--as well as "merely" aesthetic consequences (as Silliman's does)--carry a high degree of obligation to the principles of fairness and balance. One of the hallmarks of fascistic and monolithic political practice, is the absolute control of information. This has been graphically demonstrated during the Nazi era in Germany, in the Soviet period under Stalin and after, in Communist China and North Korea, and in present-day Iran. Information manipulated for the purpose of pure propaganda has a long and infamous history, and not just in oppressive regimes. Manipulation of the media has been going on for as long as news has existed. Much of what Silliman has asserted regarding the history of literature (as well as, to a lesser degree, politics) is highly controversial; it's very partisan, describing a deep schism in American art and literature, and representing himself (setting a specific standard) as a potent advocate for a different, radical conception of form, function and meaning in artistic product(s). 
 
The existence of the so-called Comment Stream (or Comment Box) as an adjunct to the generic Blog Site, implies, and is inevitably an expression of, disagreement--of adversarial positions and comments and remarks of all kinds. If everyone agreed about Silliman's Theory of the Quietist Tradition, there would be no need to argue on its behalf, and there would be no disagreement to address. But Silliman's literary and political opinions are not widely accepted, and there is no pretext for claiming that they are. If blogs are political animals, and if blog administrators have a responsibility which parallels that of traditional media--with their implied obligations to fairness and balance--then bloggers, especially serious, politically committed blog sites advocating big, controversial agendas, have a responsibility to present their case in such a way at least to anticipate differences of opinion, or--through comment facilities (such as Comment Boxes)--to entertain, to welcome, indeed to solicit differences of opinion as a duty inherent in the medium.      

End of Part II                       

7 comments:

Kirby Olson said...

My question is whether his traffic wasn't largely a response to the comments box. The comments box made his posts come alive. Now his posts are of no interest to me.

I don't go there any longer.

But I could be an anomaly.

What struck me as weird about the LANGUAGE poets is that they arrived as a power bloc, and thriough a process of terror and namecalling, took over poetry.

Some small groups spoke back, but no one was prepared for a Maoist style takeover.

In essence, they killed poetry, at least for me.

Being able to talk back through the comments box made them briefly seem approachable.

I blame J for closing the comments box down. His vitriolic and asinine comments were too much even for me to bear. He appears to be jacked up on meth (I'm not saying he is), and who wants to deal with such a clientele on a daily basis? The "Jewette" comment and the other unmentionable words, are almost certainly a reference to his input.

The minimum a commenter should present is a face attached to a place and a history, so that there is some kind of responsibility for the comment.

But I think another issue is that Silliman's very success had an apex, and then the comments box became a major time-suck for him, and something he had to think about all day long.

Because there are relatively few Christians in the poetry realm, I have a much smaller clientele. There are a few atheists who come to my blog (very few poets are willing to do anything but spit on Christians and Christianity), and they are welcome as long as they have a name, a face, and a place they are from.

For instance, you are from SF, and I can PLACE you. Ed is from Silver Springs, and I can place him.

What I think Ron rightly objected to was the poltergeists of the comments box who appear only to try and frighten and terrorize the blogmeister and anyone else who appears there.

I'm sure that editors of more mainstream publications have to deal with that kind of person, but the blog realm doesn't have things like secretaries, security guards, first readers.

Plus, most of us have jobs, families, and real friends that come first. Then our real writing comes into play, and finally, the blog.

The blog can't become more than about 3% or 5% of your life. This would be economic suicide.

I don't understand why the Jessica Smith incident sent him over the edge. I was on vacation that week, and now since he erased all the comments, I can't go back and see what took place. When I read your blog it came into place. Ron didn't feel he should allow reactionary comments that discouraged the proletarian, feminist revolution. He cares about all the so-called marginals, and wants to push their fortunes, while discouraging and harassing the likes of Billy Collins, who he regards as quietist, or on the side of the status quo.

I think Ron's blog was reaching something like 40% or more of Silliman's life.

That's too much. It was an interesting few years, especially while his comments box was the Wild West.

A lot of the energy in it spilled over from the BuffPo list which had itself begun to censor comments, at which point it died, and the arguments moved to Ron's blog.

I'm sure the comments war will open somewhere else soon. This provides a high level of hit count, but is very hard on the person whose job it is to oversee the legality of the situation.

Kirby Olson said...

In general, one of the problems with running a revolution, is that along with the flotsam and jetsam of the marginals, are the merely revolting.

I think Ron was not willing to deal with that element (Warhol had to deal with that element, too, in the person of Val Solanas, among others).

If you think of the sixties and the parties it wrought -- you have to remember Altamont, and how the revolution was compromised by the Hell's Angels.

These two things always go hand in hand. When you challenge the law, you get the lawless, or the anarchists, but you also get people for whom the law is something to stomp on, or break a pool cue over.

Now, of course, with the advent of Mexican cartels wanting the heads of the Arizona sheriffs, you get the other side of the Obama revolution. He doesn't want to patrol the border, as it's just too much against his instincts to help the poor and downtrodden.

But by not patrolling the border, you also allow in the revolting scum who have turned Mexico into a shooting gallery.

As for me, I think the law is the only thing we have, and that we should ALWAYS be on its side. It may sometimes be too rough (cracking the head of an innocent here and there), but without it, you can't have any sort of society, and thus you pull away from any kind of discourse.

This is what happened to Ron.

He didn't have any clear sense of the law.

I hope he figures this out, and gains a new appreciation for Fox News and what they are trying to accomplish there in the name of counter-revolution (intellectual hygiene).

Curtis Faville said...

Somehow, Kirby, I don't see that happening.

There's a very high wall separating you and Silliman's political sentiments. Unscalable, in my view.

Conrad DiDiodato said...

"The San Francisco Chronicle, for instance, is under no obligation to present a fair and balanced version of an issue, but it does have an implied responsibility not to present biased and prejudiced views. Every responsible editor of any newspaper or periodical would likely subscribe to this view, even in cases where the content is radically biased."

Bloggers can't be(and haven't been, as far as I know) held responsible for online content as much as mainstream journalists & newspaper writers. Newspapers& reporters are prosecuted all the time for misleading or egregiously biased reporting: the financial viability and respectability of media corporation are at stake here. Some people have made the point that media have become as big as corporations and government in order to handle the real 'big' legal & financial consequences of irresponsible reporting.

Bloggers and citizen journalists don't have to worry about lawyers' fees, trial preparation and loss of reputation. The more modest the means and wider the technological availability, the better things seem to look for real direct participatory dialogue and exchange of information. Bloggers tend to live in a fairly sheltered environment in which issues, usually oblvious to ethical or journalistic standards of any kind, have free reign over just about any topic whatsoever.

The only place in a newspaper still left for this sort of online free speech is the op-ed page. Bloggers are free to explore a wide range of information discourse: whether it be poetry criticism or reportage, without the worry of real feedback. In fact, they oftentimes take their information from online media outlets without acknowledging sources, bypassing copyright and intellectual property issues altogether, and there's no way of knowing if what you read has been researched or edited for accuracy.

A blog as widely read (and influential, too) as Silliman's seems to have tread a middle course through mainstream writing and the "wild wild West" ethos of of a lot of current online writing. It's quite probable that Silliman could write a daily "Chronicle" editorial page on poetry, and pretty much accomplish as much as he has online: the man fits the profile of a professional, seasoned, well-informed & savvy reporter of all things poetical. I don't know that Silliman would let himself be characterized as just a Leftist whose goal is class struggle.I think the man, if only unconsciously, is beginning to see the inherent contradictoriness in the role of leading post-avant theorist in the age of unbridled online theorizing: as if the move towards a more mainstream assimilation (& distribution) of literary views is meant to safeguard his so far privileged position from the potential devastation of real radical opposition.

Conrad DiDiodato said...

"The San Francisco Chronicle, for instance, is under no obligation to present a fair and balanced version of an issue, but it does have an implied responsibility not to present biased and prejudiced views. Every responsible editor of any newspaper or periodical would likely subscribe to this view, even in cases where the content is radically biased."

Bloggers can't be(and haven't been, as far as I know) held responsible for online content as much as mainstream journalists & newspaper writers. Newspapers& reporters are prosecuted all the time for misleading or egregiously biased reporting: the financial viability and respectability of media corporation are at stake here. Some people have made the point that media have become as big as corporations and government in order to handle the real 'big' legal & financial consequences of irresponsible reporting.

Bloggers and citizen journalists don't have to worry about lawyers' fees, trial preparation and loss of reputation. The more modest the means and wider the technological availability, the better things seem to look for real direct participatory dialogue and exchange of information. Bloggers tend to live in a fairly sheltered environment in which issues, usually oblvious to ethical or journalistic standards of any kind, have free reign over just about any topic whatsoever.

The only place in a newspaper still left for this sort of online free speech is the op-ed page. Bloggers are free to explore a wide range of information discourse: whether it be poetry criticism or reportage, without the worry of real feedback. In fact, they oftentimes take their information from online media outlets without acknowledging sources, bypassing copyright and intellectual property issues altogether, and there's no way of knowing if what you read has been researched or edited for accuracy.

A blog as widely read (and influential, too) as Silliman's seems to have tread a middle course through mainstream writing and the "wild wild West" ethos of of a lot of current online writing. It's quite probable that Silliman could write a daily "Chronicle" editorial page on poetry, and pretty much accomplish as much as he has online: the man fits the profile of a professional, seasoned, well-informed & savvy reporter of all things poetical. I don't know that Silliman would let himself be characterized as just a Leftist whose goal is class struggle.

I think the man, if only unconsciously, is beginning to see the inherent contradictoriness in the role of leading post-avant theorist in the age of unbridled online theorizing: as if the move towards a more mainstream assimilation (& distribution) of literary views is meant to safeguard his so far privileged position from the potential devastation of real radical opposition.

J said...

Heh heh.

Better Hells Angels on meth, at least ones who can scrawl in complete sentences, than tea-room decorators or east coast literati for that matter. We're ridin' Gonzo here, baybe.

KO's mistaken as usual. El Moderatrix S-man didn't let any nasty comments through anyway. I gave up months ago, except for one or two a week, which were generally not published. So the flame session that set him off--wasn't me, ese.


Much of what Silliman has asserted regarding the history of literature (as well as, to a lesser degree, politics) is highly controversial; it's very partisan, describing a deep schism in American art and literature, and representing himself (setting a specific standard) as a potent advocate for a different, radical conception of form, function and meaning in artistic product(s).

I don't perceive this great guru-ness in S-man that you do. He seems more Bogus than ...boodha (tho many a boodhist's as bogus as a biblethumping baptist, es verdad). S-man's not...Fredric Jameson, sir, or even some genius freak ala Pynchon or something, or the beat goats like Ferlinghetti. Doesn't really seem philosophical..or "lit-crit" like, tho' perhaps a techie-geek of some sort (like 1000s of others). He may have done something important once (I note that he worked with prisoners for some times..) but... more of an entrepreneur as you say...with a keen interest in cutting edge-kaleidoscopes...

J said...

Olson's lying again, Sir F. Then that's par for the course for a pro-war GOPer and Foxnews supporter. Anyone who considers Glenn Beck a real Merican ...why that should be moderated and banned, if not sedated.

I suspect Olson gave Silliman an order to close the comments since a few brave hepcats at times tended to be slightly critical of Olson's conservative heroes (lets not forget Olson was blessing the likes of Pat Robertson a few months back. He quotes Limbaugh, etc.) , and they also objected to his bizarre readings of beats (Corso as rightist. Heh. Corso's fave poet was...PB Shelley--the sort of mind an Olson will simply never get). And Silliman hisself at times seemed to approve of the neo-cons