Blogging as business

It always amazes me that there are people who still don’t know about blogging. Inevitably, when I ask someone, “are you familiar with blogging”, at least 75 percent of the time I’m met with an odd look of confusion. I guess I should understand that there will always be people behind the technological curve—I mean there are those who are still using rotary dial phones and can’t program a VCR. Yet, with the discovery of blogging by the mainstream and everyone from talk show hosts, to corporate CEO’s now maintaining their own blogs, blogging has acquired a certain portent, even with establishment types.

What I find most interesting about the amount of ink and discussion given to blogging, is how lame much of the analysis and even the uses of the platform are. I don’t necessarily think that blogging and staid corporate communication are necessarily a partnership worth undertaking.

In my own area, a Friday column by business writer Eric Blom in the Portland Press Herald on the future of blogging and the continuous emails for seminars by a local entrepreneur indicate to me that blogging is here to stay—at least for awhile longer.

Interestingly, in the same way that traditional media and business communication tends to make conversation boring and misses the real issues, so does blogging done by those who are interested only in how much commerce it can bring their way. A CEO who uses a blog to continue to communicate in his traditional dysfunctional way—hiding behind a veil of power and control with the object being to manipulate and even intimidate—will achieve nothing from maintaining a blog.

Media personalities such as Arianna Huffington and her cast of elites at Huffington Post are betraying the true intention of what makes blogging unique. Given the democratic nature of the platform and the freeform (and even open source) connotations inherent in it, I don’t think it’s a tool that will work unless traditional models of communication are thrown out the window. I’m not talking about discarding grammatical constructs or basic spelling, but I am talking about using blogging to spin lies and obfuscation more favorably. I despise those who use their blog as just another tool to market and manipulate.

A perfect local example of how traditional techniques and staid business practices are beginning to invade the blogosphere involved a local entrepreneur who I’ve written favorably about. She had a profile done on her product that one could argue was unfavorable and even unfair. Some communication passed back and forth amongst several parties and I weighed in on the matter. This entrepreneur posted about it on her blog and then, about a week later, the original post, as well as comments I had posted had mysteriously disappeard. She had obviously taken the original entry down and I surmise that our local blogging “guru” and web design pro (the guy conducting the business seminars, who also btw designed her blog) advised her to not use her blog and engage in “controversy”.

Personally, I don’t care what anyone does with their blogs. I’m a perfect example of someone who uses both of mine to do things that I wouldn’t expect anyone else to embrace. I mean posting material that is sure to inflame, incense, and generally piss off half of your potential readers (and possible customers) isn’t necessarily a model for business success. At the same time, I want to be seen as a writer who is willing to take risks, look at issues with a perspective markedly different than mainstream journalists and others seeking to perpetuate the same old tired status quo, and generally position myself away from the pack. Interestingly, for all the material I write that might put people off, I’ve also written articles and features for mainstream publications that falls within the parameters of mainstream journalism.

For good or for bad, I’ve used my blogs to build some type of (dare I say it?) branding. If you are looking for polite takes and knee-jerk responses to the news, politics, culture, music and sports, then this ain’t the place to be getting your material. But if you want some analysis that’s thoughtful, researched, even if it isn’t always easy to digest, then I think I can help you out in that area.

Blogging gives voice to many (like me) that don’t always have easy access to the controls of communication. I hope that this domain doesn’t become polluted by those who have no intention of utilizing it for anything other than their latest advertising strategy.

Can you say "fascist"?

I know that the little matter of free speech is no big deal to many, particularly younger folks, but some of us still think it matters, if just a bit.

Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) puts the Bush administration's clampdown on dissent in context and ends by saying, "It is in this context of an overall attack on dissenting opinions that the effort to censor cable and satellite TV becomes truly frightening. This is not simply about cleaning up offensive content; it is about the extreme right wing pushing to limit the free exchange of ideas. The time has come for all Americans who love freedom to let the government know that they don’t want Uncle Sam turning into Big Brother. "

I urge you to read the entire article.

From Common Dreams, via In These Times:

Remote Control
by Bernie Sanders

In his 2004 inaugural address, President Bush spoke repeatedly about the need to bring freedom and liberty to the world. In fact, he was so focused on the concept that he referenced the word “freedom” a whopping 27 times during the 21-minute speech. I’m happy the president is embracing the concept of freedom. Now if we could only get him to start practicing what he preaches.

Since his inauguration address, President Bush and his right-wing colleagues in Congress have launched a full-scale effort to limit and control the programming Americans are able to see and hear over the airwaves and the Internet. In short, they’re going after your computer, your radio and your remote control.

In March, the House passed legislation to dramatically raise “indecency” fines for broadcast television imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to $500,000. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, heralded the high fines, saying, “This legislation makes great strides in making it safe for families to come back into their living room.”

Emboldened by this success, conservative leaders like Barton and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) are threatening to go even further. For the first time, they want to apply indecency standards to cable, to satellite and even to the Internet.

“We put restrictions on the over-the-air signals,” Stevens, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in March, while speaking to the National Association of Broadcasters annual state leadership conference. “Cable is a greater violator in the indecency arena. … I think we can put restrictions on cable itself. At least I intend to do my best to push that.”

And Barton told reporters, “In the foreseeable future, you are going to see a convergence [of standards]. I stand by that. … The impact [of indecency programming] is going to be the same in the home. It’s irrelevant what the ownership or the origination of it is.”

If Stevens and Barton have their way, it means goodbye to “The Sopranos,” goodbye to Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show,” goodbye to the boys of “South Park,” goodbye to “Deadwood,” goodbye to Dave Chappelle and goodbye to many other shows enjoyed by millions. Faced with strict FCC censorship rules, all of these programs will be removed from television altogether, substantially rewritten, or banished to late night. Let’s keep in mind that these are not shows broadcast on public airwaves but rather on cable programs that consumers select and pay for. Apparently the right-wing ideologues believe they know best what programs Americans should be allowed to purchase and view. If these regulations are imposed on paid cable and satellite networks, it will have a chilling impact on freedom of expression in America. Today, they are going after Howard Stern and Tony Soprano. Tomorrow, who will be their target? Will it become “indecent” to criticize the president?

These effects have already been seen on broadcast television. Given the looser rules governing cable and satellite, the change to paid programming will be even more drastic under FCC oversight. Controversial or cutting-edge shows will become increasingly rare as programmers become more and more limited in the types of topics they are willing to explore and the kinds of guests they will invite.

Sadly, this is not the only effort currently under way by the right to determine what material is appropriate for the American public to see, hear and read. The effort to censor cable becomes even more ominous when viewed as part of the larger attempt by the Bush administration and its allies to limit public discussion of minority opinions.

In recent years, the Republican leadership has used unprecedented measures to crush dissent in Congress. During the recent passage of the Bankruptcy Bill, for example, no opposition amendments were allowed on the floor of the House—effectively silencing public debate of the bill.

Perhaps the most blatant example of intolerance for dissenting viewpoints, however, comes from Bush himself, who is currently traveling the country holding “town meetings” on his Social Security privatization plan. Despite the fact that these ostensibly public meetings are paid for by taxpayers, American citizens who disagree with Bush are not allowed to attend.

It is in this context of an overall attack on dissenting opinions that the effort to censor cable and satellite TV becomes truly frightening. This is not simply about cleaning up offensive content; it is about the extreme right wing pushing to limit the free exchange of ideas. The time has come for all Americans who love freedom to let the government know that they don’t want Uncle Sam turning into Big Brother.

The path of least resistance

Modern life has a way of taking the starch out of us, particularly if we try to do things that go against the grain, or we dare to swim backwards upstream. We are socialized to sit down, shut up and basically, face the front of the room. We receive our marching orders from parents, teachers, preachers and presidents, and any time we decide to vary from their advice, the masses swarm in and beat us silly until we rejoin the bleating herd.

Whether one decides that he won’t shop at Wal-Mart, writes honestly on a blog, attempts to represent rural life in a book, or keep alive a local baseball league for non-professionals, there is the constant reminder to stay in line, embrace the commonplace and do not vary from the company manual.

I understand why most people adopt a comfortable life. The 9-5 schedule is reassuring, as you always know where you’ll be and at what time. The paychecks are steady, and while you always make considerably less than the head honcho, you don’t have to wait for the check in the mail, or harangue editors for payment for that article that you laboriously researched and slaved to write. Voting Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) gives one the comfortable feeling that one is doing something meaningful. The real rebels get a tattoo.

Volunteerism is on the wane and I think one of the reasons is the bureaucratic maze and mumbo-jumbo that one is put through any time they try to do something that benefits the community. Navigating phone grids, facing the rudeness of gatekeepers (the true sand in the gearbox of most forward movement), and generally bucking the status quo of others boring work-a-day existence brings frustration and a questioning of one’s sanity for even attempting to vary from the teeming masses of followers.

When the local professional team has an upside-down lease that has the city basically subsidizing a private business and the local baseball league pays through the nose for use of dilapidated or inadequately maintained (and lighted) fields, then its obvious that the good of the community no longer matters to those in control. In community after community, the lifeblood of place is drained by economic development mafias, dictating to the overburdened taxpayer what’s best. Then, after footing the bill for the well-heeled, Joe Q. Public finds that he’s been denied access to the party, left through a hole in the fence.

Occasionally, shards of light break through the darkness. A friend's kind word of encouragement, a local businessman who "gets it" concerning community, an administrator willing to go the extra mile for you, and a family member who is behind your project, all these keep you in the game for a bit longer, bringing the tape at the finish line into view.

Obviously, there are more important things than whether I publish my book, or the Twilight League makes it through another season. We have young soldiers (most predominantly poor) dying in Iraq in a war that we were told was won. Our so-called representatives cut backroom deals with credit card companies, rolling back the clock to the days of debtor prisons and poorhouses. Homeless people roam the streets lacking shelter, healthy food and proper medical care in Portland, Maine. Yes, there are bigger issues in the world than my little penny-ante pissing.

Another blip on blogging

The buzz of blogs continues to gain the attention of media types, particularly those in the mainstream. Rarely does a week go by without another member of the establishment press jumping on the blogging bandwagon. If not onboard, then members of the mainstream media are finding new ways to dismiss or diminish this member of the new media.

This morning’s daily drop to my email mailbox brought me the latest salvo coming from the establishment press. MediaBistro.com’s Editor-in-chief Elizabeth Spiers weighs in on a column written yesterday by the NY Times’ Adam Cohen.

Spiers takes Cohen’s arguments apart and shows the false dichotomy that writers like Cohen often set up when discussing the blogosphere. Cohen goes to great lengths attempting to de-legitimize bloggers for their apparent lack of standards and ethics. Setting up a straw man with statements such as this one:

But more bloggers, and blog readers, are starting to ask whether at least the most prominent blogs with the highest traffic shouldn't hold themselves to the same high standards to which they hold other media.

As Spiers correctly asks the question, “who are these high-traffic bloggers who fail so miserably to meet journalistic standards?”

If Cohen has been paying any attention to the smell coming from his own profession, that of the “mainstream press”, they aren’t exactly awash in truth-telling and integrity themselves.

If you are interested in blogging and the debate that’s heating up regarding legitimacy of this forum as a communications tool, I’d recommend reading Spiers article. While not earth-shattering, it’s a decent take on the issue. It’s also another example of how out-of-touch mainstream writers like Cohen continue to be.

I'll also put in a plug for mediabistro.com, as a helpful website for anyone involved in the writing profession. I've found the site helpful, from its informative columns, how-to's on pitching stories and other pieces to magazines, newspapers, as well as offering help on writing proposals and pitching literary agents.

The home stretch

When I came up with the idea of writing a book about local baseball last July, I never envisioned it growing into the project it has become. Since that first interview last summer, I’ve conducted an additional 32 more and have created my own personal oral history archive on town team and semi-pro baseball in Maine.

When you are new to any process, you inevitably make mistakes. In my enthusiasm for the subject at hand, I probably got ahead of myself at times. Being new the publishing game, there was a certain naiveté that permeated my process. With nonfiction books, rather than risk writing an entire book, only to find out you can’t sell it, the recommendation is to shop a couple of sample chapters as part of a proposal. While I put together a proposal back in early January, I also continued to write, hoping for a favorable response. My hope has been for a regional publisher to take a gander on the book and that I might have found a publisher at this point in the process. Instead, I’ve received rejection letters, some personal, most others of the form letter variety. One very nice personal note from a publisher said, “…thank you for you patience while we hemmed and hawed over what to do with your book…we have gone back and forth several times in editorial discussions and, while everyone agrees the book definitely has engaging possibilities, ultimately we just didn’t think we could market it as effectively as we’d like, so we are going to have to decline your offer.”

At the suggestion of a writing acquaintance, I sought out an agent that might be able to place a niche book of the sort that When Towns Had Teams is, so I sent off a number of proposals to book agents—meanwhile still hammering away at my manuscript. That brought replies like this one; “Many thanks for your submission. You have an interesting idea for a book, and there's a lot to like about your approach. I'm afraid that in the end I just didn't come away from it quite fully convinced it was something I'd be able to represent successfully. I'm sorry not to be more enthusiastic, but I do wish you luck in placing this with the right person.”

So, as I prepare to add the final two chapters to my manuscript, an ode to the players, as well as the towns and teams that made small town Maine special, I am faced with a dilemma. I have one small publisher who is interested in reading the manuscript. If they read it, like it enough to want to publish it, then they’ll obviously suggest changes and if I’m lucky, I’ll have a book out on baseball at some point in 2006, but it could end up being 2007! For the prestige of putting it out on someone else’s imprint, I turn over control of my product, get paid a very small advance and will be lucky to come away with much of a profit at all.

More and more, I’m looking towards going the independent publication route, where I take on the initial risk for the book, but retain control of the product and can market it to the niche audience that I believe exists for it. There is an enthusiastic group of people who will buy a book like this one. This audience consists of the former players who played town team and semi-pro baseball and many of their family members. In addition, I think there are those who enjoy reading about history and culture from the past. The problem I have at present is waiting around to get the book out and seeing the enthusiasm cool from many of the people I have interviewed and spoken with over the past few months.

Sometimes when I look back over the process, I question if I have gone about it the right way. I suppose if this book was something other than what it is—primarily a labor of love and a paean to small town America and the men that I grew up idolizing—then maybe there would have been another way to do things. If I had stopped with the sample chapters, I never would have put together this far-from-perfect manuscript. While certainly flawed, I get a sense that for those who will read it however, there will be a nostalgic quality and hearkening back to a time that has long since disappeared. Whatever one has to say about the limited market for a book like this, I’m happy to at least have been the one to write a book that captured a part of Maine that no one else has bothered with. Publishers and agents be damned! Sometimes, you’ve got to just follow your heart and suffer the consequences.

I probably won’t make much money at all on the finished project, although I’m hopeful that if I can sell 2,000 to 3,000 copies, I’ll have done well for a first-timer. It will at least keep me in the game and I’ll be so much wiser for the experiences of book #1. Then again, I can end up being an abject failure like many others who tackled projects that are out of the mainstream. That fraternity is certainly large enough to welcome another member to its club.