July 12, 2006

Things I don't want to talk about.

Then why are you talking about them?

That's a mystery explored shallowly in the new vlog:

ADDED: Here's the link to BloggingHeads, so you'll get my reference to Mickey Kaus.


SteveR said...

I guess no one wants to comment on what you don't want to talk about.

reader_iam said...

Okey-dokey. Your blog. I, for one, can certainly refrain debating issues that come up on it, either directly or as a logical extension of the post, since that's what you prefer.

Seems a little odd, though, to chastise commenters for giving attention to topics which it should have been pretty darn easy to predict would "engage" people. That goes from the PW/Frisch post, too.

Or maybe you throw these things up so you can watch commenters go at it and then criticize them disapprovingly for taking the bait you offered.

Whatever, Ann.

John McCrarey said...

you crack me up, Ann. I guess the best thing about the vlog experience is that your personality really shines through. I'm actually to the point where I am looking forward to the next broadcast.

Oh, and take a chill pill reader iam...

Henry said...

Well clearly the Barrett post jumped the shark when the conspiracy believers arrived with their trash bags of "proof". I'm surprised at how many commenters tried to refute them. Clearly, the record shows what a pointless exercise that is.

Years ago I got into an argument with a black-helicopter believer and decided I would never waste my time like that again. It was one of the stupidest half-hours of my life.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Soo...do you think there are mermaids in Lake Mendota? I'd be looking for the mermen, myself.

Ethel Merman! There's NO business like SHOW business.

Let's go on with the vlog....

Ann Althouse said...

Iam: Seriousy. What about my two posts encouraged people to engage with the substance of the arguments made by the conspiracy nuts or the details of the what's going on over at Protein Wisdom? Do you think come on, don't rubberneck is my devious way of saying lookee here?

Ruth Anne: Well, we don't have Ethel Merman in Lake Mendota, but we did once have Otis Redding in Lake Monona, God rest his soul.

Stephen said...

If the Barrett thread starts to repeat itself I will see your point, but, on its own -- you gotta admit that thread's hilarious.

I actually don't think it's that a big risk, just because if you read far enough into it, the conspiracy guys aren't able to engage and, so, don't.

I posted some questions about why it was necessary to blow up the Pentagon also / why tear down the World Trade Center in addition to the plane / were a bunch of other people who would have had to have been in on the plot in on it as well?

Did that get an answer? No way. The main poster openly refused and then just left. Falseflag posts a long list of conspiracy points and, then, when he can't answer the critiques, bails.

I really wouldn't be concerned about it.

Jen Bradford said...

Do you think come on, don't rubberneck is my devious way of saying lookee here?

Yes. Also, "lookee at my own ancient kerfuffle with Goldstein, in case any of you missed it". Mercifully, I had.

Internet Ronin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Internet Ronin said...

The arrival of the conspiracy theorists themselves, armed with a shopping cart full of data (and an intent to post the entire contents therein), was definitely a surprise.

As for the other subject, I just took a gander after having bailed out early, and it went about how I thought it would, based on prior experience. Ann, I understood your original post was about rubber-necking, and appreciate the sincerity of your comments in the vlog here, but I am genuinely surprised that you failed to anticipate the result, which I believe was, inevitable given the actors involved. (Jen Bradford has thoughtfully provided an example of what I mean immediately above this post.)

Ernst Blofeld said...

Shouldn't these vlogs be called "Visible Althouse" or something?

Ann Althouse said...

Ernst: I really did seriously consider that!

Stephen: Those were good points. I actually did enjoy reading some of that stuff.

Internet Ronin and others: Please note that I don't mind that the comments include all this stuff. I'm just not doing it personally.

And believe me, I didn't link back to the Thanksgiving crap to get you to look at it. I felt I had to disclose my conflict of interest.

Ernst Blofeld said...

Maybe get some musician friends to supply some new bumper music, too. I'm thinking some insistent, percusion-heavy "dum dum dum dum DUM DUM" rat-a-tat style stuff like they do before the local news. You can come up with some bumper video, too, maybe lots of cut shots of the campus.

Internet Ronin said...

Ann: Thanks - point understood. I imagine that one of the disadvantages of running a blog is that people tend to address the blogger asking for a response about someone else's comments as if those comments were written by the blogger, or somehow endorsed by the blogger because they were posted to the thread. When the thread veers off-topic, but some are insisting on responses or implying that the blogger must be endorsing that idea because "there it is posted in the comments section," I can see how this might be annoying because the subject may now be something of little interest to the blogger.

Christy said...

Oops, I just posted a comment refering to she-who-must-not-be named before I read down to this post. Do I get points for erasing comments twice (at about #100 and #200) yesterday explaining that in my expert opinion yada yada? For the very reasons you mention for not engaging.

Sanjay said...

You protest too much. I mean, c'mon! I don't read all your comments but I clicked on that one to see people fervently defending the theory (like going to the zoo, y'know) because I _knew_ that would happen. I mean, if you thought about it, you did too.

Sanjay said...

PS -- I'm not too big into the podcasts and vlogs (others are, fine for them), I'm just the kind of guy who likes the blog better. But I did listen to a couple podcasts in a group, with people talking back at the podcast, and it was great, great fun. I'm thinking the vlogs would be nice the same way but somehow it seems like they need to be visually changed somehow to facilitate that. I can't figure out though exactly what would make the "argue back" ambience right.

Not that you should be catering to my tastes since like I said I'm not a multimedia guy (I'm a "dead electron" reader....)

Jacob said...

If you sign up for Youtube's free Director program you can post longer videos.

Pogo said...

The vlogs are fun.

And I don't detect a smidgen of disingenuousness in discussing a topic and hoping it doesn't veer off into Weekly World News land.

A classmate of mine in college was simply unable to discuss the topic at hand (a religion class at a jesuit school), preferring to tease the professor, or mention his lamebrained notions about philosophy. One day he inquired, "So Father, when I get to heaven will I become divine?"

"No", he said, "if you get to heaven, you'll be lucky."
Yeah, jesuits aren't ready for stand-up, but still, you know, owned.

Maxine Weiss said...


Sing your Vlog!

Get up and dance.

Do cartwheels---cartwheel your Vlog.

(Are cartwheels the same thing as handstands?)

Gravity boots.

Ann, isn't the purpose of a Vlog, to entertain?

Peace, Maxine

Maxine Weiss said...

Without production values, costuming, set design, plants, action---people moving/going/doing......

...it's little more than public-access cable.

And, I'm assuming that's not what Ann is aiming for.

You've gotta do production.

I think Michelle Malkins videos are very good. Although I disagree with some of her fashion choices. Malkin has an immediacy and hers feel very fast paced.

What other reason could there possibly be to watch a video, other than to see the changing sets, fashions, movement etc....????

Peace, Maxine

Ann Althouse said...

Sanjay: "But I did listen to a couple podcasts in a group, with people talking back at the podcast..."

Like, what were they saying?

Anyway, I agree that the main thing is the written text. That's what's searchable, what's quoted and linked. It's the main thing. The sound and pictures are just for a little variety and dimension and because I find it amusing.

Jacob: Thanks. I was looking around for something like that and didn't see it. But the 10 minute limit is probably a good discipline for me!

Maxine doesn't like my DIY vibe.

Sanjay said...

Sorry, it was a long time back (third or fourth podcasts and thereabouts.) It was all Althouse fans so not too confrontational. And a workplace thing so people (including me) were walking in and out. Nice.

That's genuinely a different thing from the written blog, and it's a blast. But I don't know how you do it for the vlog -- maybe put the camera at one end of a coffee table and you sit at another, give it a discussion feel?

You could see it going to a sort of "althouse-party" thing, except my personal readership of blogs tends to be a bit more spontaneous and random than that and I think most readers are the same (but podcast listeners probably less so). Still it would be fun.

Or best yet, podcast the podcast-response party (this won't work well with vlogs). You podcast. They play it in a cafe or something (UW student hangout?), modestly stacked with Althousers. They respond to points in the podcast. Then the whole is played for you and you "Oooh" at the good points and "Oh, please" and the ones you don't like, and the whole thing is wrapped up in a single podcast or maybe dubbed over "Project Runway." Hard to set up, not worth repeating often, but likely endlessly fascinating.

Ricardo said...

"Shouldn't these vlogs be called "Visible Althouse" or something?"

I vote for "Optical Althouse".

I also like "Ann Cam", but that may be a little too high-schooley.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Optical Althouse fits with the jingle really well.

Optical Althouse.
It's a VLOG-cast
of the odd last few posts

on a blog called "Althouse."

Can John and Britt do it?

Palladian said...

Ann + Sanjay: I have the perfect solution to backtalking the vlog.

joeschmo1of3 said...

All these dustups in the comments section reminds of the early days of the internet when people were on usenet and subscribed to newsgroups. There were moderated and unmoderated groups called something like "alt.flame.eggs-vs.-bananas.unmoderated" and people would go on for days just writing the most vile posts regarding the other writers. We can still see these kinds of writing in the forums of online games and other online communities.

It's not new, but it is getting more exposure. This is what happens when the web is not just for geeks and nerds holed up in the computer labs. What's important is to address how behave online and how we would behave in the "real" world. And why should there be a difference?

As for me, I had enough of flame wars back in undergrad, so now I can sniff these things a mile away.

Maxine Weiss said...

"Maxine doesn't like my DIY vibe."---A

What vibe? Public-access cable?

Very raw and rough-hewn.

I think you have to acknowlege that you can't possibly master every media/medium.

Woody Allen is first and foremost, a film maker. He can't write. You find that out. His genre is film. That's where he's at his best.

What plays in terms of text, doesn't always come across thru video.

Consider your medium.

Peace, Maxine

Sanjay said...

Palladian: Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!