Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Have we frightened all the budding new journalists away? I was looking forward to their contributions. If Webdiary can scare them how will they cope in the real world?

They would have made an excellent contribution to Webdiary and we could have all learned from them. Is there something for us to learn from the way they have reacted? Perhaps we are not as inclusive as we would like to think.

Richard:  They're still around, John, perhaps doing warm-up exercises.  And one's submitted a piece.  Agreed though, John, it would be great to hear more from them.

"One of them left in a huff and the rest followed."

Well not exactly. Harry. I remember dropping by regularly to raid the bar and sweep up the dead cockies, water the plants, feed the fish and so on.

I ever so patiently waited for you to return to fly that bloody great big wooden aeroplane parked out the front.

And then the booze ran out.

I did, however, return the other night but it was all quiet; the bar was empty and it was all cold inside. The pub with no beer.

Personally I sort of agree with Harry on the moderation thing but can understand the concerns of those who don't. Harry 's blog was fun and sometimes enlightening and sometimes full of crap just like the real world and for someone like moi no rules was just fine.

Anyway life's too short to get one's nilly in a knot over other people's emotions; as such A .E. Neuman probably has the best philosophy - what me, worry?

BTW what ever happened to that great big wooden aeroplane, Harry, or was it all just a pigment of my imagination?

Another choice example of scientific illiteracy amongst media workers last night on the Seven Network.

Reporting on a local study into learned behaviour and problem solving by octopuses, a Seven Network journo reported how a researcher found that an octopus could, when food was put in a closed peanut-butter jar, actually work out how to get the closed lid off the jar to retrieve the food.

Pleased as punch, the researcher showed viewers how the octopus would perform the trick over and over, getting the lid off the jar every time.

"This is important research," said the journalist, "because scientists say it shows how learned behaviour drives evolution."

What the....!!!??

Perhaps not since the days of Lamarck have scientists thought any such thing. Otherwise, you might wonder why plants and viruses and the like evolve so prodigiously.

More likely, the ability of the octopus to problem solve in search of food so effectively shows how evolution drives the ability to learn, not the reverse.

Next week, how natural selection weeds out the scientifically uneducated and sends them to media schools.

Jenny, my blog wasn't destroyed by the things you mention at all.  I simply got bored with it.  In the end it was a blog where all I did was post pictures.  Before the last election I attacked the regulars for their Howard hating ways.  One of them left in a huff and the rest followed.  That was a liberating experience.  Something that wavered between boring and irritating had finally died.  For the regulars, they have relocated to another blog and then also started commenting here. No skin off their collective noses and none off mine.  I operated my blog between 2003 and 2007.  The only thing that ever changed about it was my level of engagement.  I'm certainly glad it was open and essentially without rules so I couldn't disagree with you more.

On some other thread,  you posted a link that included a photo of a grotesque woman evidently intent on swallowing a crowded sate stick.  As a joke, I asked you if it was you.

You didn't get the joke, and gave an earnest reply.  I don't think that you get my posts. 

However, I accept your sincerity.

One doesn't need to read the details in order to know that. Life has many travails: it is a fair assumption that each person has had his/her own difficult passage. And to respect them accordingly. Or to know that it is necessary to overcome the limitations of personal experience in order to understand the issues and the society.

Perhaps it is guilt, Jenny Hume, that makes me assume that some of your comments were directed at me. I certainly felt guilty that I had made a passive-aggressive ...(ooh, such a favored female approach)...comment about you on another thread.

So, I would like to say to you directly that I find a huge dissonance between your expressed negative attitudes to the mass of people at large, and your admiration for Henry Lawson, with his constant pity for the ordinary, "the faces in the street." I can't compute that at all.

I have no doubt that you are a good human being, Jenny . Most people are. But, again taking the direct approach, I have a query about your donations (obviously, not knowing your income, I have no idea whether these are particularly generous or not) - but your recounting of them always astonishes me.

What of Matthew 6? "Take heed that you do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise you have no reward of your Father which is in Heaven...When thou dost thy alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee...let not thy left hand know what thy right hand is doing." ...What does that mean to you?

To me, it certainly means that anything that I might give - and I am not suggesting whether I do or do not - is not something that I would ever pass on to others, let alone broadcast on a website.

Once I was a child, who thought that those who endorsed and echoed my opinions were my friends. Later, I found out that those who engaged with my thoughts, even if at time they challenged, disagreed or derided them, were people who were intimately connected with me. They are the friends that I prefer: but, again, other people make other choices.

It's easy to love your supporters...but, crossing the barriers is what it's all about, is it not? My dearest friends have been at times - and maybe still are now - my opponents: because we've reached the deepest, scratchiest parts of one another...and found the warmth of our humanity simmering there.

Several people here had posted that they found it difficult to make their initial posts.

I extrapolated from that to speculate as to how much more difficult this might be if you had, as the students may well have, a cohort of known associates/rivals, as well as your teachers/judges, seeing one's first  first dog-paddling of the pool.   And thus, to how it may be easier for them to jump in under pseudonyms. 

That's all.

I don't even own any shoes. Only sandals. My sandals are made of rope, because I don't care for plastic and wouldn't want to be mean to an animal by having leather ones. And I've only got one, because I gave the other one to a one-legged fella in Ethiopia or somewhere. Now I have to hop about everywhere in my search for someone poorer than me to patronise. Oh how noble I am.

This hopping I do these days takes me back to my childhood. When my brother and I grew too big to ride on the horse with the other three kids we had to hop to school. We could only afford one pair of shoes between the two of us. We wore one each. We weren't allowed to wear out the soles of our shoes, so we had to hop to school on our bare foot. By the time we got there, school was over for the day; so we had to swap shoes, turn around and hop back home. While we got to be champions at hop-scotch, which is unfortunately not yet an Olympic Sport, we didn't get much schooling. No wonder neither of us grew up to know much more than your average lawyer. Kick a footy a good long way, though.

Having got that off my chest — not as well developed as my legs — I want to endorse what F Kendall said. The value of a thing like this Webdiary lies in the variety of points of view to be found in it, the breadth of opinions expressed on its pages and, let's hope, in its ability to attract and hold the reader's interest. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the identity of its contributors. We get to know the contributors by the nature of what they contribute. And that is the way we should get to know them.

I, for one, couldn't care less about the identities of the owners of the opinions. I am only interested in the opinions themselves. And by this I don't mean posters' inflated opinions of themselves. There is far too much of that sort of thing around here; and it seems to be increasing. Too much promotion of self, and that, interestingly, usually from posters with little in the way of interesting ideas to promote.

Nor do I care to waste my time reading bits of the life stories of people I don't know, and whose lives don't interest me at all. I don't enjoy reading through a post and reaching the end only to wonder So what? Certainly a bit of personal trivia here and there is not out of place; but there are more appropriate places than this for paragraph after paragraph of that sort of thing, and post after post dedicated to little else. If people want to indulge in that, why don't they find a chat-room inhabited by like-minded souls, and indulge themselves there? I think that would be better than wishing they could exclude or censor any who vehemently disagree with them, and trying to subvert this site to just another you stroke my ego and I'll stroke yours chatroom.

Richard, my point is that in some quarters, I received much criticism for using the name Harry Heidelberg. I was relentlessly attacked for using that name and certain people, with an identity fetish sought to unmask me as if there was some deep, dark secret.

That was never the case. As Kathy says, any of my writing ends up revealing a lot about me anyway. The politics, Switzerland, the US etc etc. It's gonzo blogging. It was a translucent mask but one that had to be used for a very practical purpose. It worked for that purpose but I strongly and bitterly resented the attacks for using the name Harry Heidelberg. It was entirely legitimate. In fact that one I openly discussed with my employer at the time in Europe and the US when I was to be published in Not Happy John.

So Richard, I can't say the name set up worked because some got it in their head that there was something sinister in it. It was always absolute nonsense. A person who tries to hide hardly makes a habit of saying they lived in places like Kansas City, Basel, Bern, Jacksonville and Sydney. That sort of weird combination tends to reveal identity. The person in hiding hardly posts pictures of their travel and weave personal anecdotes into every post. That's not bloody hiding and I strongly resented suggestions that it was.

So no, the name didn't work because clearly some people in the darling "community" didn't respect the reasoning behind its use. They didn't care about diversity of views and conflicts of interest.

I'd actually rather be using the name Harry Heidelberg right now. I'm better known under that name online anyway. Even my mother calls me Harry from time to time. She's been doing that ever since I started using the name. The only bloody reason I am using David Davis is because of all the garbage about "hiding" by the identity fetish people.

There may be a policy about using such names but it doesn't stop the identity fetish folk from doing what fetish people do - obsess, obsess and obsess.

Justin Obodie (that name is a pseudonym)

The name is real, the person is a pseudonym.

Funny thing is -  I've never liked suede.

Anyone who respects diversity would immediately recoil at the idea of an insistence on the use of real names. It's a repugnant policy that at once kills diversity and open debate. The identity obsession was always totally beyond my comprehension.

The insistence on the use of real names immediately cuts out a good chunk of the population. What you end up with is people who have no concern about their name being associated with vigorous political debate. Of course for lefties this makes perfect sense. To them it is incomprehensible that any possible conflict of interest could exist. That's because they're not commercial and they don't know the first thing about conflicts of interest or being accountable. What you end up with under such a policy is only public servants, the retired, the welfare dependent lefties, the go nowhere types and the self employed in tiny non representative businesses. All these groups are unaccountable so of course they can use their own names.

Since the gathering is like that there is no interest in hearing from people who work from mainstream companies. It's a virtuous circle. It's OK for you so you assume that is the way the world should be.

It's not though. I could be a lawyer in a firm that has an alcohol company as a client. It's not my client but it's in my firm. Clearly it is a conflict of interest for me to come out relentlessly attacking the alcohol industry or say the particular company involved. It is against the interests of my firm. They would quite rightly object to that. This is not the case in my situation but I highlight it as an example. Even if there was such a company and I was in such a firm I would never say that as I am a huge supporter of the industry. You surely see the point though if I was that way inclined (ie a wowser like Rudd)

It is wildly inappropriate for all sorts of people to permanently record all sorts of opinions in a forum that permanently records them to be Googled for centuries from now.

As none of you come from a background where this sort of thing matters, you'd never get it.

Ultimately it comes down to what is important to you. For the majority here it has always been about an obsession with identity. Identity has always been far more important than the expression of diverse views.

I am the reverse. I am interested in the view, I am interested in the diversity, not the identity. The only thing I would request of people is that they use the same name on a consistent basis. I hate it when people use lots of different names on the same day or week. This is a question of utility. If you are going to debate someone you want to know it is the same person you spoke to yesterday.

As for the actual identity, I have long found the fetish surrounding that truly repugnant. It's great for people who want to restrict views but it is demonstrably foolish if you are interested in a diversity of views.

These things become dogma. Identity has been dogma at Webdiary for years. It's assumed to be special. I've always considered it foolish - but hey - my carping about rules is old and boring. I've never had many supporters for the concept. I only contributed again on this as I see it is being debated. Again. The rules are dogma because they never change and are unable to be questioned. Dogma by definition.

So, we work on a basis of mistrusting our contributors. I see.

And I thought that I was paranoiac.

I am interested in ideas, thoughts, and opinions on the net: whether they are yours, Richard Tonkin, or whether they are those of Richard Tonkin posing as Kilgour Trout. I don't care. I care whether they are interesting and thought provoking and expand my horizons. It's the minds that matter on a talkbboard, not the people, putative or not, behind them.

But, if you point out to me that you are actually Cardinal Richard Tonkin SJ, LBG, HROH, I still want to judge your comments not by who you are, but simply by their reason and argument.

What's wrong with inventing a persona on the net? We all do it in real life. Anonymity on the net means that we don't have to do this.

Why should that be so, Richard?

Because, as you say, with a name you are "putting your Self on the line, so to speak." With anonymity one can investigate the reaches of the mind and consciousness, without "putting yourself on the line" and feeling personally vulnerable.

With anonymity, the ranges of your ideas are on the line, not your vulnerable self. How nice it would be if people were here defending their ideas, not their egos....but, putting yourself on the line demands this.

My point would be that the ideas are ephemeral, unformed and subject to change. Putting your name to them pins them down, and pins you down to defend them. As is seen so often here where defensive debates are so common, rather than questioning and actually discussing issues.

Ok, I'm out of step. No problem.

Webdiary, in its insistence on real names -(and, er, its exception to this rule for several Important, we can presume, people) - is unusual. Most online sites are anonymous, and, to my mind, therefore allow a more free flowing discourse.

Most communication happens through sight: appearance, stature, dress, posture, stance...and then accent, grammar, and then...so on. I don't want to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs, as Huck Finn said, and I'm sure that everyone knows such. Without these externals, words themselves actually matter. Logic matters. Reason matters. Words matter. This is the power, interest and rationale of online forums...(and, don't bother me with the stupid "fora", ok?). Words matter.

A site where people are anonymous allows this. A site that doesn't, inhibits it.

Some contributors on Webdiary try to circumvent this by trying to introduce an online presence of their qualifications, their perceived stature, their claims to distinction. In effect, they are repeatedly showing us the logo on their Prada, Gucci or whatever handbag, and expecting us to be swayed as to the superiority of their arguments because of these extraneous factors.

Because of the lack of anonymity on this site, I would be tentative, were I a student, of putting my views, agreements, hostilities or antagonisms forward, possibly to be judged not only by my peers but by my ultimate course evaluator.

If that diabetic feline, Claude, turns up in a Potomac I'll be really pissed.

Ian, yes I can see the contradiction.  It's  supposed to be sarcasm.  It's as silly as all the other contradictions inherent in the comments to this piece. All the faux loving and caring is a joke.  So too is the giving and the sharing.  The topic is politics. Online journalism and politics.  It's a time for clear thinking and plain speaking, not a time for empty, needlessly comforting platitudes.

The students need to toughen up, otherwise they'll never make it in the real world. I am playing my small part in this process and so too are you.  You have directed one of them to savage me like a bulldog.

Gordon Gekko said "if you want a friend, get a dog".  My version of this is "if you want a friend, don't go online".  The students do not come here to make friends. They come here to learn about online journalism and it's not a friendly topic. Let them proceed in a workmanlike manner.  The best way to help them is to confront them (preferably in anger) or at best present a dour appearance.

Ian, you say of Heidi, "believe me, your country needs you". Which country? Heidi is from the United States. The truth is probably both countries need Heidi, as do other places around the world.

You invite Heidi to savage me like a bulldog. I suppose that is in the context of the loving and the caring, the giving and the sharing that is at the heart of the Webdiary community. I've been savaged for years in this place. Water off a duck's back. It's like yawn, time for my morning coffee etc.

I love this mix of Australia, the United States and Switzerland - my three favourite countries in the world! I was reading this morning of a Swiss journalist, Claudia Spahr, who tries to answer the loaded question of "Where is Home?". More of us are becoming citizens of the world. There is little doubt journalism has no borders.

Here is a nice intro from Claudia on her interpretation of "home"

Claudia Spahr, Spain

I am in the back of a taxi in New York with my Japanese friend, Chiaki. We chat casually with the Pakistani cab driver from Islamabad.

He asks me that loaded question I find increasingly difficult to answer: "Where are you from?"

After a few glasses of Sake, I take a more original approach:

"Well I was born in Yorkshire. My parents are Swiss. I'm now at home in Spain. My heart beats to the rhythm of a Brazilian drum and in a previous life I was probably Chinese."

My Japanese friend sniggers and we head out into the night to meet other equally confused cosmopolitan city dwellers. This is the future of a new world which is becoming increasingly jumbled in terms of nationality, identity and race.

The rest of the article is here.

I am joyous to see so many positive comments related to my last post...

My previous was not specifically for me, but rather, for several people who I knew felt too scared to submit another entry.

 I didnt mind sticking my name out there as "the one who thinks everyone is a big bully" haha. I truly dont think that everyone is a bully. I was merely trying to make is easier for my classmates, as well as myself, to get the balls (excuse my language) to post our thoughts on here.

So, thank you for clarifying our welcomeness. Maybe now we can get to that fresh breath of air ~ student-blog-posting-mania!!

 Ready guys?...

I wonder if students and others who have not placed a comment struggle to overcome their fear. It's not every day that we open ourselves up to public scrutiny. I know my wife thinks I'm crazy for being part of the Webdiary community. I have tried to encourage others to participate in the Webdiary community. Most think it is a waste of time, some think they have nothing of value to say, some think no one will listen. I think most of us who do participate find it to be addictive. I think to overcome the criticism and fear we need a certain fire in our bellies. A need to express our ideas and to bounce our ideas of others. The more diverse our community is the better it will be. I guess if you want to be a journalist it takes courage.

Some may think that blogging is not real journalism. I believe if you have a story to tell it will be bursting to come out and this is a wonderful opportunity to tell your story. In the process we develop our writing skills, broaden our minds, and I believe we strengthen our democracy.

Now all the students might find this a bit of fun. It sort of has a ring of truth about it. If the link won't work just google Butterflies and Wheels and search the heading below. I am sure you will on many threads here find excellent examples of all of it:

The Woolly-Thinkers Guide to Rhetoric

As for the flamers, did you see what happened to that pair in Melbourne? They indulged under pseudonymns in the worst form of nastiness and vicious and abusive flaming, then one day someone discovered their identity and outed them. That put the Claudes of this world amongst the pigeons I can tell you. And it made my day.

We're not talking about children. These students are grown adults so stop infantalising them.  If they are intimidated by a blog one wonders how they'll cope in the real world.

The original Heidi (if you like) was born in Switzerland a long, long time ago.  She was sent to Frankfurt and didn't like it there.  I don't blame her.  If I was in Frankfurt, I'd be thinking of Switzerland as well.  What did Heidi do?  Did she feel intimidated and frozen?  No.  The original Heidi took matters into her own hands.  She ran away and went back to Switzerland as all smart people eventually do.

Heidi was a little girl full of spunk and grit.  Her tenacity got her back to her alpine homeland.  Eventually, in real life, she ended up marrying Peter, her childhood friend.  See, little girs with tenacity often get what they want.

If the original Heidi was like some of these students she would have sat in the apartment in Frankfurt, thought of Switzerland but have been too intimidated to take action.

I'd be wary of infantilising grown adults.  If they are unable to speak for themselves you'd have to wonder why they are doing journalism.  Are these the tenacious journalists of tomorrow?  I think not.

I'm sure there's a loving, caring, affirming blog somewhere out there but it is unrealistic to expect it on a site that routinely debates politics and other matters of public interest.

Perhaps a prayer group or other charity scenario would be more to the students' liking.  It would have nothing to do with their study but it would be an excellent way to avoid the horror and intimidation of life in the real world.