Thin-skinned bloggers (II).

In journalism, three makes a trend. We're getting close. Awhile back I noted the caustic commenter guidelines at The Big Picture, Barry Ritholtz's superb economics blog.

Now it's time for economist Paul Kedrosky to sound off. I guess it was last week I noticed a commentor of one of the also superb Kedrosky's Infectious Greed blog posts complaining that "this is a once-good economic analysis blog turning into a ski-video blog," or words to that effect. I hastily commented myself, noting how most bloggers have, and share, non-core interests, and that I hope Paul carries on. (I have as much interest in extreme skiing as I do in Dominique Strauss-Kahn's shoe size.)

Guess I that didn't work, because Kedrosky fired off this missive to IG commenters:

I haven’t been paying attention, mostly because I’ve been busy elsewhere, but apparently there are some bitchy readers here. Some people seem to think I should stick to finance, others are tired of random skiing/avalanche/landslide/etc videos, and others are … just being bitchy.

To all of you feeling that way I have one thing to say: Piss off. I honestly don’t care what you’d like to see.

If you want someone who surveys his/her readership and provides that content for them, go to USA Today. Or maybe some other blog. Here I put what I want, when I want, about the things I’m interested in. If that cuts across geology, finance, backcountry skiing, extreme sports and whatever else, that’s the way it goes. And it’s not changing.

Love, Paul.

Mr. Ritholtz, meanwhile, has now posted a similar missive (my earlier reference was to mere commenter guidelines), in which the Big Picture blogger asserts the obvious - that it's his blog, and if you don't like it, GYOFB. (A explitive with which I was previously unfamiliar.) I dunno if there's a troll surge or these esteemed bloggers - they're each highly ranked in polls of economics bloggers - or someone's spiking their java with absinthe. Ritholtz directs errant commenters to a "few simple rules," which turns out to be six pages of fine print worthy of an life insurance policy and headed "Terms of Use & Disclosures."

Or it could be an economist thing. It's a matter of scientific fact that economists are never wrong. You need only ask one for confirmation.

Well, there are no guidelines at EB. If we can get through an historic election with the delightful exchanges among WW, Rob and cangar, free speech continues to rule here.

I mean, that's only fair, since you indulge my offbeat interest in, for instance, famous writers and their cats. (Sorry to spring this on you.)

 

Mark Twain.

 

George Bernard Shaw.

 

Doris Lessing.

 

Margaret Atwood.

 
W.H. Auden.

More here.

 

Comments

[Wascally Wabbit]

It is a delight with you David - to put together the word ramble and blog and make up a new word (apologies to Kady O'Malley for intruding into her world of new wordiness) - you write ramblogs - very well - and long may you continue to do so!

[Darwin O'Connor]

Sounds like some people need to learn to use Wordpress categories.

[Uncle Jeffy]

Not only are economists frequently wrong, but the honest ones will admit it. Now all you have to do is find an honest economist. Trust me - I'm an economist.

[Ken Houghton]

I'm still trying to figure out how to get separate RSS feeds chez Kedrosky: one for finance, one for bicycling, and one for All Else (at least until Karl Popper gets enough posts to justify his own feed).

Otoh, Brad DeLong created separate feeds for his blog long ago--and he still had to go to Moderating Comments. And I note that both of your "thin-skinned" bloggers have Day Jobs that are not blogging, so anything extra they have to do keeps them from getting Paying Work done.

[Darwin O'Connor]

You'll notice that under each post on Paul Kedrosky it says "Filed Under: Uncategorized" That means he isn't using Wordpress categories. If he did you could get separate feeds, but since he doesn't there is nothing you can do.

[dolive]

WW: Much as I like "ramblogs," maybe magablog or more euphonic, magalog, would better describe what EB tries for. And I will keep trying!
Like Kedrosky and Ritholtz, I'm not engaged in a Day Job but get occasional aggro from management for spending so much time blogging. We have many Star bloggers, none of whom are paid extra for that work, indeed, few in the newsroom even comment on the blogs' existence. Too bad, since some of these blogs - and most papers in N.A. now have reporter-blogs - often break news or point to story ideas that could be fleshed out into winsome feature stories in our dead-tree editions.
So I don't read these folks without thinking what they're doing is a favour, extra work, and I greatly appreciate it.
On the technical side, I must apologize for not maximizing use of all the bells and whistles. If it matters to you, I will get myself down to 1 Yonge headquarters and obtain a tutorial.
As for economists, I've been impressed in the Great Recession aftermath at all the self-deprecating souls who, unbidden, have tendered mea culpas (as I did, in a Star column) for not seeing the storm clouds gathering. Whatever you do for a living, if you don't fess up to the inevitable mistakes and shortcomings, there goes your credibility.
The other thing about economists is that generally they have a real passion, not just for economics but society. This in contrast to, say, even the best stock-market analysts and money managers, who have just as much reason to be passionate about real estate, equities, commodities and the like. Again, just the ones of my acquaintance and the ones I most like to read - they have a belief system, not the fake "objectivity" journalists were wrong-headedly sworn to beginning in the 1970s. There is no such thing as objectivity, of course, and it's far better to declare your biases. Why it's been called "the dismal science" has always mystified me, since, like engineers, economists figure things out, and among solutions to problems is prominent among them.