On Desi Blogging

I have been reminded a number of times, by a number of people, that I should be careful about what I write in these pages. I laughed at them in the beginning, thinking that there are few (but much appreciated!) folks tuning in regularly, and I can't foresee that changing drastically.

However, with search engines like Google and the wide array of special-interest list servs, it is generally pretty easy to get more people to tune into your site once, when you know what buttons to push (i.e. write something timely and that has a kick). And with that power, as Peter Parker's Uncle Ben told him, comes great responsibility. Or does it? I've been thinking a bit about the whole blogging with a consciousness thing, especially as the number of blogs, even those that are just desi/brown in focus, has mushroomed.

Self-publishing has been going on forever, and is generally a very good thing, taking the control of content out of the hands of the mainstream production and dissemination circuits who focus more on the bottom line than the fine line between art and a simple commodity. I'm old enough to remember the explosion of 'zines in the 90s and went through the community literary scene when self-made/bound/(sometimes) handwritten poetry chapbooks were also in vogue (and still are in some corners of La Boheme). Those chapbooks were one part mini-rebellion to the concept that publishing poetry is a losing proposition, and one part the DIY spirit that makes artists and other free spirits so vital in our overly specialized and technologically dependent world.

Self-publishing can be empowering, it can be honest, and it can focus on views and news that may not be widely covered or coveted in the mainstream. It can be flippant, irreverent, and profound. Fox News can be profane, but not really any of the other things. When the market guides your decisions, you're no longer independent.

But the difference between the old school paper and ink publishing and self-production and dissemination in weblogs is that anyone with time and internet access can create a site, and more importantly, anyone with internet access can tune in. A homemade 'zine or poetry chapbook will not go nearly as far as a home"made" weblog can. Production cost for the former can be quite prohibitive when distribution is a question; you can't drive demand from referrals alone; and folks have to see what they are getting before they are willing to "buy" it (with money or their hearts and minds). But a blog is like a candy shop that gives out free samples all day. You can stay, linger, move on. Get addicted.

Weblogs are generally opinions, mixed with some research to support the arguments being made by the blogger. However, blogs have begun to take on a more serious place in the business of news in the past year. Mainstream news sites, television channels refer to their own "blogs" of news, and have even occasionally turned to the blogs to see what the "blogoverse" is thinking/saying about a particular issue or event, in real time. "Let's see what the bloggers are saying" is quickly replacing "Let's go to the video tape" as a favorite cut in broadcast news.

I have some very keen problems with blogging, especially in niche markets like the South Asian community.

1) No matter what we think, most bloggers are not journalists. They often just play them on the 'net. We haven't been trained to idealize "objectivity", we don't get paid to do this (though by the looks of it, I'm sure that quite a few are earning a salary at the same time that they are blogging), and we are often not fit to appear in front of cameras. In other words, while browsing, the casual reader should keep in mind that it's not the "news" page of the paper that you're reading, but the op-eds and the letters to the editor. There are many personal biases built into the information product, even moreso than usual.

2) This brings us to the fact that there is no code of ethics for bloggers. Netiquette is really not a code of ethics, but rather more of a hip way to squash someone that pisses you off. So anything goes, and some folks can get pretty nasty for undisclosed reasons (or sometimes just because they're having a bad day). A biased writer may not be obvious in a post itself, and her work can be picked up as "objective reporting" by the casual reader and battle its way into conventional wisdom on a topic, especially when subsequent web searches ring up the slanted piece and unwitting readers stumble onto it without the context of the blog, the writer, and sometimes even the facts themselves.

3) Speaking of which, who are the fact-checkers? What kind of research are we talking about? Specifically, push-button publishing makes it infinitely easier than ever before to just write up what you think, or what you heard, and pass it off as fact, especially when you juxtapose that with "real" news reporting and snippets of articles from here, there, and everywhere.

Moreover, I'd wager that the "research" is more often than not, internet searches. How much history, fact, and nuance is missing from the 'net about so many events, even in recent memory? I have experienced and witnessed enough in my handful of years in the social change arena in NYC to know that much of the Asian American organizing, history, struggles, triumphs, and challenges have not really been documented anywhere, let alone on the web. (Which, as an aside, is why it is important to support something like Asian American Movement webzine, and to get more representative voices to join their collective).

Additionally, even when something is documented and linkable on the web, who is to say that that piece (often an academic or a journalist) is balanced, correct, and has weighed the different perspectives before choosing one in their (re)telling of history?

4) Where is the accountability? Many bloggers are anonymous, using nom-de-plumes, or just make things up about themselves. If we can make things up about our own identities, what makes you think that we can't make things up about the news, the world, and what's happening out there? And what makes us believe that there aren't hidden agendas guiding attack-posts (which can't even pretend to be investigative, since they don't pick up the phone and talk to people before writing about them), especially concerning community-based organizations, public individuals, and other matters of significance?

Aside from the occasional thorn-in-the-side commenter, who is going to call them out on matters of fairness and transparency in their writing? Would a likely response be: "It's my personal journal/weblog, and I can write what I want"? I think that I've read that flavor of response fairly regularly on some of the sites out there.

Even if there is dissent by way of an engaged readership, who really reads the comments with that level of scrutiny? It's like reading the corrections box in a newspaper for the news the day before. Some of us do it, but most do not. And therefore, aside from egregious errors that are often pointed out and corrected in the body of the text, the post stands as the principle communication about any particular topic, and that's what gets read the most. Not to mention that that's what gets picked up by newsreaders and syndication feeds.

Which may bring us to the ultimate question about desi blogs, specifically when they purport a "community" perspective. Where is the line between sharing your opinion, and shaping your post so that others believe it, and therefore, adopt your particular perspective about the community? Are blogs set up to inform people about news (even though they usually just "report" on news that's already been reported on in an actual media source) or encourage a dialogue to explore issues that the news presents? Or are their principle purpose to build a chorus to ultimately feed egos?

While the advent of push-button publishing has made it possible for anyone to share their opinions, their routines, and the minutiae of their days, it has also allowed for people with opinions about the world to have access to an audience. Technology has opened many doors this way, and created a form of populist media that has become very popular, but we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that bloggers are everymen/women who represent anyone other than themselves, and also to recognize that more often than not, blogs are far less about populist media than popularity games, and that the currency of truth is not measured in hits per day but rather in track record of experience, quality of research, depth of analysis, and honesty about shortcomings, failings, and mistakes.

Maybe this is a good place for an example. I have been guilty, myself, of stating that some sites are a good source for desi news. I have begun to check myself, explain that I look at these sites to learn about things that are going on that I may not have heard, and then try to formulate my own opinion about that event/incident/issues/organizations. While I value some of the opinions, I still treat these sites like an advanced and fairly thorough clipping service more than a place to actively and safely develop my own thinking and perception of the issues raised by the writers.

However, if someone were to begin reading a blog as a primary source for their understandingof a community and/or issues that pertain to it, they could be led astray, especially by folks who are on a soapbox about their perspective, or their authenticity, but don't have much more to back it up than a lot of hours in front of a computer screen and, more often than not, minimal interactions with the subjects of their posts. I know that I've been guilty of the same in the past, and have tried to remedy what I could when I was reminded of the flaws. But others don't do that, and their pieces remain up, virtually unchallenged (especially if it's about community organizations or initiatives, when the principals of those entities seldom have the time to respond to misrepresentation (or no representation) in the media, let alone the blogosphere). Then, the next time that someone searches about agency X or person Y, what they get is a source that is often an under- or even un-researched polemic that hasn't even been seen, let alone replied to, by the person/group in question. Is that fair? Perhaps one could argue that the comments section more democratizes the process, or someone else could argue that the process doesn't have to be democratic because blogs are private viewpoints, but is that really true anymore? What's private when everyone can read it?

Moreover, some writers have developed a false sense of authority (equating and conflating the depth of their archives with past scholarship), egotism, and self-righteousness. Criticism is handled harshly, with the echoes of casual readers and avid addicts ringing in that closed courtyard of "public" opinion called the comment area. They zealously guard their fifteen minutes of fame, earned for timing and cleverness in the marketing of a product that the frenzied desi masses are hungry to gobble up. But at the end of the day, how many of the sites will actually make a difference, and how many will survive the inevitable fade from relevance that dooms most ephemeral fads? And who really cares, anyway?