Now that Ezra’s terrible secret has been revealed, it seems safe to say that the Politico article does a pretty piss-poor job of making JournoList sound like a dire liberal conspiracy. It did leave me wondering about another point, though: whether the availability of this sort of back channel is one of the factors that’s led to the blogosphere’s diminished vibrancy.
There’s an obvious advantage to moving the social and argument-refining functions of online conversation to a venue where participants aren’t exposed to the risks of misinterpretation, prudishness or unreasonably high expectations. Opting for a listserv post instead of a trackback means no public castigation for stupid mistakes and no worrying about an occasional thoughtless (or just really funny) remark getting you in trouble with your employer. And, as Ezra points out, it’s better to have wary experts offer their wisdom in private than not at all. Besides, it’s not like participants are giving up much by foregoing the contributions of the slack-jawed commentariat during this process (aside: I remain baffled by well-meaning web triumphalists’ calls for the use of technology to enable more direct participation in the policy process — have they spent any time in blog comment sections?).
It’s hard to begrudge anyone this sort of professional conservatism, particularly when their industry is in turmoil. I certainly engage in similar behaviors when I find them advantageous. But it does seem likely to me that there’s a homogenizing effect that comes from blog-labor-saving devices like mailing lists and memeorandum. As a fan of these writers I’m glad for anything that makes their work easier, but as a member of the reading public I have to admit: it’s kind of a drag to know that the blogosphere’s efforts to improve itself have led to its audience being protected from so much interesting content.