Andrew Orlowski is a weblogger...
So a few days ago William Gibson announced that he was giving up weblogging (at least for the moment) because he had a book to write. Wired talked to him about it:
Gibson began his weblog this year in early January. He has posted entries on an almost daily basis, barring sporadic periods when he has been on a reading tour for his latest novel, Pattern Recognition. Gibson is currently winding up the book tour in Ireland and Britain. Once it is over, he'll end the weblog, he says. "I have to go do whatever it is I do, to find the next novel," he said. "Writing novels is pretty solitary, and blogging is very social." Fans have flocked to the relatively reclusive author's site for insights into his novels and for his crisp observations on a plethora of topics.
So to summarise - he enjoys weblogging, finds it useful and interesting, enjoys the contact with his readers, who also enjoy reading his site where he makes 'crisp observations on a plethora of topics'.
Noted Register troll Andrew Orlowski had a rather different take on the whole thing, however. While lauding Gibson's skill as a writer to hyperbolic levels, he decided to give his opinion about his second-favourite author's decision:
Gibson told Lillington that the daily confessional might ruin his creative process. He's quite right to think so. He's an artist, which means he collects and refines ideas over time, and has a gift for organizing his language to maximal effect. Put another way, he chooses his words carefully, and he chooses the contexts in which they will have most impact. (Optimizing compiler writers will understand what we mean - blabbing webloggers probably won't).
Now obviously I don't have any interest in pointing out that Gibson specifically talks about starting up his weblog again after writing the book, and that he's found substantial value in it. There's no point in debating the finer points of journalism here, because Andrew's piece actually has no journalism in it at all. At best he writes Opinion editorials - writing that drips with his own personal (and I believe ill-thought-through) opinions and vengeful grumpiness towards the weirdly elitist, powerful, Google-manipulating (and yet trivial, impotent and babbling) cabals of weblogging culture.
Intriguingly this leaves me looking at his piece with a newfound insight - because it seems to me that the natural home of personal opinion of this kind on the internet would seem to be the weblog rather than an online magazine. In fact, if you look at it closely, it's difficult to work out if anything really is different between the stuff that Andrew writes on the Register and the stuff that I write on plasticbag.org. When you come right down to it, what is the difference between the way Andrew presents his opinions and the opinions of the tens of thousands of webloggers around the net?
I can only see three significant differences. Firstly, Andrew's weblog is published on TheRegister.com - which purports to be a 'serious' publisher. Secondly, he probably gets paid for it. And finally, most webloggers I know are rather better at spelling and grammar than he is.
In fact - rather than just declare Andrew a weblogger, I think we should go further. Andrew's writing style, hawkish vocabulary, obsession with his own interpretation of events and unwillingness to listen to opposing viewpoints seem to me almost totally comparable a very specific subset of weblogging. It's terrifyingly similar to the rabid opinion-mongering seen in warblogging's least salubrious ghettoes (the subset of that noble faction that continually puts ideology before evidence and force of argument ahead of plausibility or logical debate). In fact, let me make this totally clear - not only is Andrew Orlowski a weblogger in all but name, he's also not a very good one...
Comments
Please stay on-topic, informative and polite. I reserve the right to remove comments for whatever vague capricious reasons seem reasonable at the time.
Yeah, that's pretty much the same thought I had upon reading Orlowski's Gibson article. What separates The Register from most weblogs is almost purely an issue of presentation--put it in a reverse chronological stream instead of a newspaper-style format and I don't think it would be out of place on anyone's blogroll.
→ Posted by: Buzz Andersen at May 3, 2003 9:57 PM
Very well said.
→ Posted by: Mad William Flint at May 4, 2003 6:49 AM
And yet you continue to talk about him, quote him, link to him. Sensationalists live by creating sensation, but they need readers to do so. You're playing right into his plan. I never read Orlowski articles.That's far more harmful to him than blabbing about him. Search my site for Orlowski (http://nslog.com/orlowski) and you find nyet. Orlowski is just following in John Dvorak's steps. No news there.
→ Posted by: Erik J. Barzeski at May 4, 2003 2:03 PM
I think there is a difference here. If he was a weblogger, I wouldn't be bothering - but there's this perception that he's a sensible and intelligent journalist commenting on the world around him - which he patently isn't! I think it's important that his complete lack of credibility is exposed, and if I had the time to compile a list of all the articles he's produced recently with refutations and comments from the people he's talked about I would. It's irresponsible journalism at best...
→ Posted by: Tom Coates at May 4, 2003 2:18 PM
I know Andrew pretty well. We had him over for Thanksgiving dinner when I lived in SF. So I'm kind of in the middle of the whole thing. What's strangest about all this controversy is that I think all the bloggers I know would get along like gangbusters with Andrew O., and vice versa, if everyone sat down and had a beer or four. He's a smart guy and (normally) a very good reporter, though I'm kind of puzzled by the latest crusade. I feel like I know generally what he's trying to say, but I don't think he's doing a very good job of getting it across.
→ Posted by: rusty at May 4, 2003 3:54 PM
I wrote this elsewhere a while ago: "Having read Orlowski's various blog-related articles in recent times I get the impression that he thinks a lot of bloggers are self-important no-nothing assholes. And to be honest, he has a point.
The only problem is that he tends to make this point by being a self-important no-nothing asshole, writing opinion piece posts that would look great in a blog but which are mistakenly represented as 'news reports'. Slightly ironic, that."
→ Posted by: Marcus at May 4, 2003 4:39 PM
I don't think Orlowski is a troll for his opinion. I have noticed his articles becoming more and more like a weblog post, with obligatory links to books/movies or music he recommends. A subtle joke?
His tirades on Google, Bloggin' and the new Apple music service are in the best traditions of a 'soothsayer'. A little criticism now and then might be a good corrective.
→ Posted by: gummi at May 4, 2003 4:47 PM
I'm far from convinced that it's a joke - subtle or otherwise. And I should make it clear that I have no interest in defending the worst excesses of webloggia either. There are a fair number of extremely high profile people that I think have a tendency towards irresponsible and self-inflating behaviour. I'm sure I'm not perfect in that regard either. I just think quite a lot of Andrew's latest stuff has borne such a negligble resemblence to reality, seems so knocked-off, badly researched and generally just wrong that I think it's ironic - terrible, even - that he can call himself a journalist. I'm sure he's a lovely chap - I've had a few pieces of correspondence with him in which he's been nothing but friendly and civil - he even wanted to meet up with me while I was in the States. But his work is anything but friendly and civil - in fact it seems good for nothing but bile! And I'm not the only one who thinks so
→ Posted by: Tom Coates at May 4, 2003 5:39 PM
The O'Reilly post is understandable, Orlowski's 'Scientology" comment was a bit below the belt. but I don't see where the argument is going. If it were possible to engage Orlowski in a debate you might get somewhere, mudslinging is not going to help. Well, maybe a little. I don't want to appear cheeky, if someone can point out where his facts are badly researched that would be great, or is it just common knowledge and pervasive in the ether.
Aside from that, most of his work is loaded with opinion and I get the impression that the 'Googlewashed' incident triggered something which he should run with. It might be horrid reading, for some, but I think he's going somewhere with these tirades and I'm sure he (and the readers) have no clue where it is. It might be fun when he gets there.
→ Posted by: gummi at May 4, 2003 6:27 PM
I'm inclined to agree with gummi; Orlowski could be going somewhere with this stuff. I enjoy reading his articles - even when they're exceptionally wide of the mark they have all the morbid curiousity of a journalistic train wreck. And from what more informed people say, I think it's very likely that Orlowski affects a deliberately controversial persona when he writes the more inflammatory stuff. But the fact remains - El Reg should be marketing the guy as a columnist rather than a news reporter. Suggested title: The OrlowBlog. Or The 'SkiBlog. In homage to that godawful BBC BillBlog thing.
→ Posted by: Marcus at May 4, 2003 7:06 PM
back to Gibson, I was tremendously sympathetic to Wm's plan to stop blogging when finding his next novel, and I sometimes wonder whether blogging is helping or hurting with my own longer form fiction-and-other-kinds-of-writing efforts. Someone more clever than I might contrast Gibson's concerns with Doctorow's oft-stated ideas that blogging helps him develop his novels. Since Cory is co-writing a sci-fi short story in public, using MT, at this time, it's clear that he is a kind of writer who does not fear the old strangling the baby in the crib thingie. I may be more old-school in that regard myself, seeing my new ideas (about fiction, mainly) as fragile and in need of privacy during their formative years / weeks / hours.
→ Posted by: xian at May 5, 2003 3:27 AM
I can just see it now, last year we had Dave Green versus weblogdom in Xcom. I think it would be excellent to get a few webloggers, some google hackers, and Orlowski on the same table for another Xcom-style discussion...
→ Posted by: Moof at May 5, 2003 2:15 PM
Bad journalism is bad journalism, period.
It is bad for the profession, and for the readers.
→ Posted by: Ethic at January 11, 2006 10:40 PM
Orlowski is a knave, plain and simple.
→ Posted by: Paris at January 13, 2006 3:40 PM
I agree on what you say about Orlowski. The few "articles" made by him that I read seem more like bad blog posts; full of opinions and not making any intelligent point.
I won't read another Orlowski post, there's nothing useful there.
→ Posted by: Felipe Contreras at December 28, 2006 7:40 AM