Schickelish

Kevin Drum links to a sneering essay by Los Angeles Times film critic Richard Schickel, "Not everybody's a critic."

Schickel gives the public two thumbs down, suggesting that the hoi polloi have not proven "their right to an opinion." It's a typical condescending rant of the sort one often encounters — a circular, question-begging dismissal of blogs and bloggers that begins and ends with the presumption that nothing worthwhile can come from the Nazareth of the blogosphere.

Schickel proudly revels in his ignorance of anything written in pixels instead of ink. He knows it's all worthless without having to read any of it for himself. This is not an admirable or useful quality for a purported critic.

The larger problem here, however, is that it is 2007 and Schickel is, like me, a newspaper employee. He epitomizes and neatly summarizes attitudes toward the Internet that newspapers can no longer afford. The difference between his writing and the obviously lesser writing published online, he says, has to do with the "permanence" of print:

The act of writing for print, with its implication of permanence, concentrates the mind most wonderfully. It imposes on writer and reader a sense of responsibility that mere yammering does not. It is the difference between cocktail-party chat and logically reasoned discourse that sits still on a page, inviting serious engagement.

Schickel, apparently, subscribes to the leather-bound edition of L.A. Times — the one printed on quality stock and not on newsprint destined for the weekly recycling pickup.

Schickel asserts that he writes with concentration and a "sense of responsibility" that invites "serious engagement," assuming that none of these things could possibly be true of someone writing for publication online. Had he mentioned the actual difference between his published reviews and the self-published opinions of bloggers — namely, the many layers of editorial review between composition and publication — he might have had a case, but apparently Schickel regards his editors and copy editors with the same dismissive disdain as he directs at those who self-publish online without benefit of additional sets of eyes.

I mentioned that it is 2007 and that I am a newspaper employee. This means that my ability to cover my rent check is dependent on those who publish and operate newspapers having some plan for the future beyond whining about and sneering at the blogosphere. Yet often it seems that they, like Schickel, have no other plan. And that they, like Schickel, can't be bothered to spend a weekend or two surfing the Web to develop a reality-based concept of what it actually looks like, of what works and what doesn't, of what online readers find useful or useless.

This studied ignorance hasn't prevented newspapers from investing heavily in their online ventures. The Web is where newspapers are staking their fortunes and their futures. You would think they'd want to learn a bit more about this new frontier, that they might want to look at a map, or to consult with the natives and the trailblazers who have gone (far, far) ahead of them. But they can't seem to bring themselves to learn from the people they're busy sneering at, so they're opting to learn things the hard way, to reinvent the wheel from scratch.

One consequence of this attitude is a naive enthusiasm for online bells and whistles, for the latest shiny new toy or "multimedia" innovation — regardless of whether or not it's something that actual online readers would ever want or use. See for example The New York Times' video weddings features.

Another consequence is that newspapers appear utterly clueless about how, or even if, they should be moderating their comments and public forums. As Teresa Nielsen Hayden wrote, "Moderation isn't rocket science." Nor is it new — online forums have been around for more than 20 years and there's a wealth of practical experience from which to learn. But to the newspaper people in charge, this is all brand new. They cannot get over their Schickelishness about learning from the people who could teach them what they desperately need to know. They'd rather be ignorant and asea than suck it up and learn from the people who could teach them.

This is sad. It's a pitiful process to watch, and a disconcerting one when your paycheck depends on it. But there's a lot more at stake here than just my paycheck. A free and functioning press is vital to democracy, so much so that it's protected in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the First Amendment cannot protect newspapers from themselves.