Washblog

(One of several questions.) Does Washblog want to be a political discussion blog? A lot of people think that is what it is, and my impressions argue to my mind that this is so:

• Fact-free and content-free argument on contested issues.
• The drop-off in posts after the election is over. (Did readership drop off as well?)

But at the same time, there are some impressive, well-researched, heart-felt ("biased" is too cold and elides the value of telling the truth, even if it is only as one sees it) news-worthy stories; thought-provoking opinion pieces; arcane research for its own sake; and important posts about community goings-on. The BoBt may provide a "last rock" for some folks to throw before they move on to the next soccer match/public brawl, but that's all it is in my assessment: they'll be back next summer. Is that what you want?

by m3047 on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 10:12:08 AM PST

---

There's a lot to think about here and I'll be interested to see what people say.   I don't know  where I fall in this.  Appeaser/problem solver?  

For now, what comes to mind is this major study just published by the Anneberg School that reflects what I'm aware of my interest in blogs being -- a place for people to "practice" democratic speech;  the dissemination of important information that falls between the cracks of traditional media; the uncovering of what is hidden and interesting; the dissipation of political and social fear and harmful myths; networking for political impact; a place to watch trends and ideas in the act of emerging.

Understanding the Impact of Online Communities on Civic Engagement

This week, the USC Annenberg School published a major study on the impact of the Internet on American society. Their research suggests that the online world is becoming equally important to people as the offline world - and it's affecting the way we get involved in civic life.

by noemie maxwell on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 01:46:23 PM PST

---

So long as you don't buy into the straw man that competitors don't deal in facts, because they can and the best ones DO.

So I'm a competitor.  What do I compete for?  The hearts and minds of the readers.  How do I compete for that?  I recognize that every reader, be he any of the types you describe above, are members of the jury.  They will read what you say and what others arguing with you say and they will judge for themselves what to believe.

It boils down to either/or.  "Sharing" the pie is akin to a hung jury.  You lose.  There is no sharing the pie.  You want either a Guilty or a Not Guilty verdict.  Hung Jury means you have to do it all over again from square one, because you did not acheive your objective, which is to win the hearts and minds of your readers.

Why is this so important?  Because they VOTE.  They become activists.  They talk to friends and family.  They influence the future generations.

Solving problems is great, provided everyone agrees on the problem to be solved.  Don't compete to win the hearts and minds and you'll never even begin to get people to agree on the problems, much less solve them.

by Pen on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 02:56:26 AM PST

---

Effective negotiators prepare and know the facts, regardless of their style.

Of all of the negotiating styles, competitors are least likely to share the facts. It's a fact. Shell's research as well as other's bears this out.

by m3047 on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 11:16:04 AM PST

---

(There's at least a question or two implicit in here.)

The weapons of influence (reciprocation, commitment, consistency, social proof, liking, authority, scarcity) are amoral... like most weapons. Their morality lies in the hand (or mind) which wields them and the social fabric within which their use takes place.

I believe that the behavior of competitors on political discussion 'blogs does not lead to efficient conversion of avoiders to engaged citizens; I also believe that it negatively engages certain dynamics with regard to the problem solvers, compromisers and appeasers. Noemie cites other personal goals or objectives, among them: the dissemination of important information that falls between the cracks of traditional media; the uncovering of what is hidden and interesting; the dissipation of political and social fear and harmful myths; networking for political impact. I believe that competitive behaviors mostly degrade the signal to noise ratio with regard to these goals; I think this informs some of the recent machinations on Washblog.

If there was some occult motivation for having as the goal the maximisation of readership (such as selling advertising), continuing as a wide-open political discussion 'blog may be the preferred course.

If on the other hand ratcheting down the fracas so that some of Noemie's goals can be achieved is desirable, then one way to do so may be to understand what motivates both competitors and avoiders. Neither of these groups is ready to come to the negotiating table and engage; I submit that in the case of political discussion 'blogs in particular, regardless of their dominance one of the primary reasons is a lack of buy-in. A side effect of my proposal is that the level of civic engagement of the avoiders can be increased. In this context, the weapons of influence can be employed in a morally positive way.

Of course, all of the weapons of influence are typically employed to create buy-in. But in particular, two are lacking in this context: commitment and reciprocation. Specifically, both of these tools can be combined in useful patterns: reciprocation implies commitment, and commitment invites reciprocation.

(Is any of what I've laid out so far "new" or paradigm busting? I hope not!)

I am now going to pointedly ignore the competitors and turn my attention to the avoiders (something which I think is already being instinctively done). The competitors will "join the group" (or not) when the social proof becomes overwhelming.

Most people have a preferred style, but engage in other styles on occasion (skilled negotiators are more adept at switching styles among other things).

In the absence of information about "what do the avoiders" want there no obvious way to entice them to further engagement. But there is a way: the weapon of commitment.

They are reading here. Is there some other way to entice them back other than force of habit? I've previously described avoiders as emotion-driven (probably not too many of them following this diary!). I humbly submit that they are most attracted to the stories with some emotional tang. Build on that!

Step 1: Use the weapon of liking. Do something to improve regular contributor's profiles and personalize them. Do this on a selective basis (do not feel any obligation to improve competitor's profiles, besides they don't want your help).

Step 2: Have the regular contributors personally appeal for feedback on a regular basis.

Step 3: Acknowledge feedback (reciprocation), making it visible enough that the avoider recogizes it as their own (implying commitment) even if nobody else can.

No blue skies here, I want to keep the technical requirements to a minimum and within the capabilities of Scoop. What you need is a "letter to the editor" link on diaries and stories (which is strictly anonymous), the wherewithal to read and respond to legitimate feedback, and some policy guidelines for posters and readers to follow as you lead them down the road to negotiation.

I think that guidelines with the following elements should be sufficient:

• indicate whether a particular story/diary author has made a commitment to respond to feedback or not;
  
• make it clear that the feedback is strictly anonymous;
  
• that the feedback will be publicly posted or acknowledged at the author's sole discretion.
  

You'll see that that last item makes it completely useless to competitors and yet (in the presence of liking and reciprocity) attractive to avoiders. I think if you examine the Letters to the Editor guidelines of most media outlets, you will see elements of the foregoing to varying degrees.

by m3047 on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 12:50:10 PM PST

---

I would love to hear from you regarding this article, provided that you don't mind my reprinting (without attribution unless you explicitly request attribution) and publicly commenting on your feedback if I choose to do so.

E-mail me at m3047-washblog@inwa.net making certain that the subject of your message contains washblog.

by m3047 on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 02:10:02 PM PST

---