Tynan's Anger

Image via WikipediaWhich blog has the best commenters on the Internet? It’s not Deadspin or Gawker or any other Gawker Media blog. Those blogs have arguably the funniest commenters, but the real purpose of blog commenting is to enhance the discussion created by the original blog post. Instead, the best comments on the Internet come from one of the Internet’s most unlikely proactive bloggers: Roger Ebert. The Chicago Sun-Times film critic and longtime television star constantly poses difficult, challenging propositions on his blog, and consistently gets some of the most enlightened, reasonable responses. Most of Ebert’s comments sound more fitting for a college-level film class or expert panel discussion than an internet blog.


What makes the intelligence of Ebert’s comments all the more amazing is the relative lack of a filter Ebert puts on them. Comments are moderated for spam, but all the blog requires is a name, an email, and an optional URL. The standards to avoid getting filtered out are shockingly minimal; there are numerous angry rants mixed in with the enlightening comments. Ebert also posits very controversial questions, such as a set of rules for film critics. Perhaps most notably, he launched a debate over reviewing a movie that he stopped watching after 8 minutes. Those kind of tactics would normally produce all sorts of flame mail, especially considering the weakened authority of the mainstream media film critic as a result of blogs. Ebert’s comments, however, have enough Dear Roger, Dear Mr. Ebert, and even Dear Sir openings that it sounds more like The Economist than the blog stereotype.

Through reading the comments on Ebert’s blog, as well as its sister blog, Jim Emerson’s Scanners, I’m convinced that all bloggers can learn a thing or two from Ebert’s success. Ebert has put considerable craft and care into constructing his blog, and Ebert’s blog can be taken as a model for inspiring intelligent, reasonable blog comments in the future. Here are some ways the Ebert model can benefit us all:

1. Have authority on and off the web. For film snobs as casual fans alike, Ebert has been one of the faces of film criticism for decades. Unlike most movie bloggers, Ebert has a extended track record that goes back decades before the Internet and blogs ever existed. Whether it's due to nostalgia from his fans, the clout of his resume, or his pure skill and knowledge, Ebert and his authority makes people feel like they need to treat him with respect online. Ebert has also struck a chord with the blogging demographic by crossing the generational gap. It’s one thing for someone to make their name writing on the Internet. But when a writer from a previous generation devotes himself to new media, his popularity on the web skyrockets. It’s the same phenomenon that makes any story of a 106-year-old blogger almost guaranteed to hit the Digg home page every time.
2. Write well, and with respect. When former New York Times sports columnist Murray Chass started writing online, he refused to call himself a blogger, and spent a significant portion of his early “online writing” bashing the entire concept of blogging. As a result, Murray Chass was seen as a cranky old fart essentially writing Get Off My Lawn blog posts in denial. Most importantly, these “online articles” weren’t all that good. A general rule for blogs—and writing in general—is that hastily written rants will not win you a respectful, insightful audience. Usually, it will lead to even more offensive speech in comments. Ebert, however, takes his blog extremely seriously, and has never once questioned the legitimacy of the writing he is doing online. If he has ever done something he considers unfair in his blog, he has corrected himself. Furthermore, as Ebert has noted himself, the fact that he has lost the ability to speak in real life may have made his writing better. For years, the majority of people who knew of Roger Ebert only knew his television persona. Now, people are getting to know him for his gifts in writing, an area where he has surprisingly been underrated.
   
3. Always be interested in what your commenters have to say. One of the best qualities of Ebert’s blog is that just about every blog post is poised as a question to his readers. Ebert’s open-ended questions are the perfect utilization of his authority to promote discussion online. It wouldn’t all that out of line to argue that Ebert’s blog has produced some of the best critical discussion of the film you can find anywhere in the past year. That only works because Ebert’s posts are specifically designed for commenter feedback. His particular style leads to more intelligent feedback precisely because it is so open to that feedback. It’s one thing to have authority and blog: Murray Chass has authority, as do NPR blogs or New York Times blogs. But those blogs don’t get the same kind of intelligent comments—the kind you could hear in a classroom as well as a web forum—because they don’t treat the reader like a peer. Ebert's blog does.
   
4. Find time to recognize and praise your commenters—even the bad ones. Of course, very few of the people who comment on Ebert’s blog are Ebert’s peer, both in terms of status and skill. No doubt many of the comments he gets are hurtful, or often just plain stupid. But Ebert has still maintained excellent blog comments because he has repeatedly and overwhelmingly praised his commenters. He has cited other bloggers who recognize the strength of his comments (which he now includes in his blog's sidebar), and talks repeatedly about how the commenters on his blog have given him personal satisfaction. Ebert’s blog is a success story of the blogophere, and part of the reason for his success is that Ebert makes it so his readers want to maintain a the high level of discourse Ebert praises his commenters for, whether or not they always meet that standard. It’s hard to respond nastily to someone who is being so nice and respectful of your right to comment.

Granted, based on rule #1, it would be hard for just anyone to start a blog and acquire the same level of comments. But by catering to your niche and following the other guidelines, most blogs can eventually develop a level of discussion much higher than what we’re seeing now.

Labels: Blog, Chicago Sun-Times, film criticism, Gawker Media, internet comments, Murray Chass, roger ebert

So in case my minimal blogging of late wasn't enough of an indication, it seems I cannot get to blogging about everything I want to regularly. That's why every Sunday I will be posting new and noteworthy links that slipped through the cracks on Tynan's Anger, as per my tryout post on Wednesday. You Got Yr Link Bomb is meant as a cross between the Will Cordero Memorial Linkpunch and the Week in Review post of the Gawker Media blog of your choice. Hence: links featuring commentary with heavily regulated snark. These links did not get the full Tynan's Anger treatment, through no fault of their own.

---

• Starting off, we get possibly the best Onion Sports article in weeks, maybe months. In my mind, it's the best Onion sports article since the now-legendary CC Sabathia-Prince Fielder Onion article. This one has it all: it satisfies the Cowboys haters, mocks Tony Romo exactly in a way he needs to be mocked, it's a laffer, and it's got its own consistent, ridiculous grammar and style. This one gets pwus one for being a vewy funny.
• Much to my relief, Synechdote, New York not only doesn't suck, but it may be Charlie Kaufman's best movie yet. I've been excited for this movie when it was first announced over two years ago, and the delays have had me biting my nails. Now, with the exception of Doubt, there may be no movie I'm looking forward to more this Oscar season.
• Roger Ebert negatively reviews a movie that he only watched for the first 8 minutes. He immediately follows the review with a brilliant explanation of why he felt justified in doing so. It was a totally ballsy move on his part, one a lesser critic could not get away with. But the fact that he was so responsible about his explanation is probably what made it work. As a side note, in the wake of Frank Rich admitting he ignores his comments, Ebert has gone out of his way to praise his surprisingly reasoned, intelligent commenters, who have earned accolades from Computer World. Come to think of it, this may inspire a separate blog post of its own. In other news, Arlene Croce's head just exploded.
  
• Nobody likes the starfucker Ben Lyons. How we miss Roger Ebert's vocal chords. It's now a father-son competition to have the most unwatchable film review show on television. When those shows are on, I just usually pop in my Critic DVD.
• Footage from the marathon Fucked Up concert is starting to appear online. Fucked Up's blog post makes it seem like they had no part in the current video, but I suspect otherwise. Sooner or later, we're going to be talking about Fucked Up as stealing the best band in the world title in indie circles from Yo La Tengo. And by "sooner or later", I mean "now," and by "we,' I mean "I."
• In the first kinda douchey move by the otherwise genial Tim Westergren, Pandora lays off 20 employees right as the site begins making headway in its royalties battle. Is it just me, or are you already getting sick of employers using the vague term "economic realities" to justify layoffs? If it's a cost-cutting move, say it. If you're preparing for the future, say it. But "economic realities" means about as much as saying "good teams win games;" in fact, it probably means even less.
• The Trib is winning kudos in many new media advocates' eyes. Just after endorsing their first Democratic Presidential candidate ever, the paper is now considering putting a halt on their AP wire service. Needless to say, Jeff Jarvis thinks this is the bee's knees. I could think of at least three things with the word "wire" in them than I'd prefer reading to AP articles: the script of episodes of The Wire, the DVD notes to The Wire, and the lyrics to songs by the band Wire. I would however, prefer reading AP articles to Advanced Placement exams.
• Barack Hopey Obama raised what some analysts are deeming a asston of money in September. Imagine how many Main Sts. could be supported by the $150 million in Obama donations alone. If only a certain University of Chicago professor donated a fraction of that money to the school, we'd have an excuse to avoid these annoying protestors. Maybe. Probably not.
• Finally, TERRY FREAKING TATE IS BACK!!!!

Labels: barack obama, ben lyons, charlie kaufman, chicago tribune, fucked up, jeff jarvis, layoffs, pandora, roger ebert, synechdote new york, terry tate, the onion, tony romo, you got yr. link bomb

Even Roger Ebert says so!

Labels: irony, roger ebert

There are many reasons why, but the latest comes from his letter to Jay Mariotti:

What an ugly way to leave the Sun-Times. It does not speak well for you. Your timing was exquisite. You signed a new contract, waited until days after the newspaper had paid for your trip to Beijing at great cost, and then resigned with only an e-mail. You saved your explanation for a local television station...
Newspapers are not dead, Jay, because there are still readers who want the whole story, not a sound bite. If you go to work for television, viewers may get a little weary of you shouting at them. You were a great shouter in print, that's for sure, stomping your feet when owners, coaches and players didn't agree with you. It was an entertaining show. Good luck getting one of your 1,000-word rants on the air...

I started here when Marshall Field and Jim Hoge were running the paper. I stayed through the Rupert Murdoch regime. I was asked, "How can you work for a Murdoch paper?"

My reply was: "It's not his paper. It's my paper. He only owns it."

That's the way I've always felt about the Sun-Times, and I still do. On your way out, don't let the door bang you on the ass.

Your former colleague,

Roger Ebert

Labels: bad baseball journalism, jay mariotti, roger ebert

A.O. Scott had a great piece over the weekend on the return of Roger Ebert's written reviews, pointing out rightly that his writing, not his T.V. arguing, has always been his greatest strength. He even makes some choice observations about the state of film criticism that—gasp!— have not been repeated ad nauseum over the last 3 years:

Such attrition is hardly limited to movie reviewers, and it has more to do with the economics of newspapers than with the health of criticism as a cultural undertaking...

It seems to me that “Sneak Previews” and its descendants, far from advancing the vulgarization of film criticism, extended its reach and strengthened its essentially democratic character.

While he still feels the need to make a point about a glut of online critics, his point about newspaper economy and democratization are surprisingly insightful. I'm glad he didn't resort to the mother's basement line of arguing. That would just make him look silly. Oh wait:

Labels: a.o. scott, film criticism, roger ebert, your medium is dy-ing