« Yahoo! Images is bigger than Google Images | Main | Cites & Insights »
February 25, 2005
Michael Gorman is Irresponsible
Incoming ALA President Michael Gorman's article in the latest Library Journal, "Revenge of the Blog People," is an example of irresponsible leadership at its worst. He wrote:
It turns out that the Blog People (or their subclass who are interested in computers and the glorification of information) have a fanatical belief in the transforming power of digitization and a consequent horror of, and contempt for, heretics who do not share that belief.
and
Given the quality of the writing in the blogs I have seen, I doubt that many of the Blog People are in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts. It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs.
Many people are upset, and not just library bloggers. Library patrons and supporters who value libraries are upset to see a library leader adopt such a poorly reasoned stance. See the reactions at Instapundit, The Virtual Chase, and Slashdot (particularly the comments) for examples.
His canned response to several individuals and councils included the following statements:
The piece was intended to be satirical...
and
Rest assure that my views on "blogs" have nothing to do with my activities as ALA president-elect or president.
I'm not going to add to the Gorman-blasting in general. I'm tired of reading it all, frankly, and you can find plenty of it elsewhere if you're interested. And I'm not going to refute his statements, point by point. That would give credence to statements which I believe have no credence.
However, I will say that Michael Gorman is highly irresponsible. His comments do indeed reflect upon the American Library Association, and upon librarians in general. The general public now has one more reason to (falsely) believe that libraries and librarians are not digitally minded, do not embrace new technology, and are stuck in the mid 20th century. His claim that the piece was intended as satirical doesn't strike a note of truth in my mind. Library Journal doesn't publish satirical pieces as a rule, and if the bulk of your readers don't perceive it as satire, then whose fault is that? His piece was poorly researched, biased, and quite reflective of the closed-minded professional he seems to have become.
I am ashamed of Michael Gorman. How can ALA possibly unify behind a leader who so clearly shows disrespect for both technology and those who have worked so hard to better our libraries through its use?
February 25, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/12541/1907079
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Michael Gorman is Irresponsible:
Comments
Why would you be embarrassed by Michael Gorman? He was entirely correct. This blog, for example, exists in a vacuum. Nobody ever comments on any of your entries, have you noticed? Why? Because what you write is utterly uninteresting and unengaging, that's why! It's like most blogs, a compilation of self-important ramblings that would be better consigned to a diary. So get off your high horse.
Posted by: Ron Artest | March 3, 2005
Well, Ron's ad hominem attack on your blog does support Gorman's evaluation of some bloggers, I'm afraid. I do think that Gorman is allowed to be as provocative as he wants in a free speech world, but the logical fallacies in his arguments indicate that he's not so precise or thoughtful, nor worth taking seriously on this point. Maybe he should do some blogging himself (don't judge a blogger until you've walked in his or her virtual shoes kind of thing) but I guess he's just to important to do that. There is an ego thing here with Michael more than a real argument. However, I don't mind having him be president of ALA. At least it won't be boring. *G*.
Posted by: Susan Ariew | March 3, 2005
Ron, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And many blogs are uninteresting drivel. Most of my posts, however, are informing people of news in the library technology world or pointing them to new resources or tools that might be helpful in their jobs. I do post occasionally in an opinion-ed fashion, such as the Gorman post, but that is infrequent. And your statement that no one comments on my entries is not entirely true. I've posted 873 posts, and have 689 comments. So...people are commenting. And, frankly, since most of my posts are informative, not opinion-based, I wouldn't even expect comments to happen regularly. People would click on the link I provide and leave the site. And that's fine with me. An average of 1500 unique visitors view this blog every day. There are a lot of people who don't think what I write is "utterly uninteresting and unengaging" or "self-important ramblings." I think if you actually read this blog you would know that.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton (Librarian in Black) | March 3, 2005
I hadn't meant to comment.
But then I remembered why I recognize the name "Ron Artest." I'm just wondering if this is the same Ron who made the news last fall. Try Googling '"Ron Artest" fight'.
Sarah, I don't comment normally because I'm too busy clicking and looking and saying wow or giggling or whatever. But I'm sure any site meter would say that you have plenty of traffic and are not "uninteresting and unengaging." In fact, on bloglines, there are 204 subscribers to your feed.
:-)
Posted by: The Cataloger | March 3, 2005
LiB, Ron's a dweeb. Your blog is great. Get better!
Posted by: K.G. Schneider | March 3, 2005
Just wanted to say I enjoy your blog and I really don't think much of Ron Artest's mean comment. The great thing about blogs is that you can pick and choose between them. If Ron doesn't like your blog, my blog or any other one, nobody is forcing him to read them.
Posted by: morgan | March 3, 2005
Sarah--get better. Funny: My copy of Bloglines shows you with 411 subscribers, not 204. Now there's an interesting form of uncertainty! (As you can guess, 411 puts you in the top dozen or so library bloggers, at least in terms of Bloglines popularity.) And RA's comment doesn't gibe with my reading of your blog.
Posted by: walt crawford | March 3, 2005
Aha: You have two different feeds. So maybe you have 650+ bloglines subscribers in all? That's impressive!
Posted by: walt crawford | March 3, 2005
You rock, Sarah. How did you dislocate your ribs? Too much goth? Ron Artest? He's a moron.
Posted by: randy | March 3, 2005
Actually Ron, this is one of the few blogs that I read that is useful as well as interesting. Most blogs I read to be entertained but this blog often has links that benefit me in my work as a librarian.
I suppose you can say that all blogs are self-obsessed rambling nonsense, but if you don't like them, don't bother with them.
Posted by: Katherine | March 4, 2005
I just wanted to say that LiB has international fans that read her blog avidly. Michael Gorman has not impressed me in any way and I think that active bloggers will be around challenging and encouraging professional development long after MG has returned his last book. Go Sarah!
Posted by: Thomas Brevik | March 4, 2005
Yeah. Whatever, Ron. Untwist those panties a bit.
Actually, this is one of the few blogs I read on a daily basis, and my coworkers and I use quite a few of the resources brought to our attention by the LiB. And I have commented in the past, though apparently I'm chopped liver and don't count. ;)
I am annoyed that apparently so many people can't separate format from content. "It's a blog! It MUST be bad!" is just as stupid as saying "It's a book! It MUST be good!" That the incoming head of ALA is one such person would embarrass me, too, if I were a member of ALA. I'm not, and you couldn't pay me enough to rejoin ALA, but this certainly did nothing to change my mind.
Posted by: Meg'n | March 4, 2005
Feel better soon, Sarah. You and the other librarian bloggers out there are my heroes.
Posted by: Amy Proni | March 4, 2005
Comments are not the only form of feedback. I enjoy your blog and read it daily through my aggregator. Sometimes it influences my own writings, sometimes it causes me to comment, but most of the time I absorb the information and move on. Don't let the semi-anon commenter "Ron" get you down.
Posted by: Anna | March 4, 2005
Perhaps I should keep out of this as I'm not from the USA (ah - but Michael Gorman came from the UK didn't he? So perhaps it's OK for me to criticise him;-)
I've enjoyed Gorman's writing over the years, but I do find it worrying when library leaders - particularly someone in the position he is now in with the ALA - put out this stuff that shows that they haven't bothered to get to grips with a new communication medium and its possibilities. It may be trying to be playful and provocative but it plays straight into the hands of people who pigeonhole librarians as nice, if eccentric folk, traditional, reliable, reactive, a bit ignorant about the latest developments ... There's nothing wrong with being traditional and reliable, but thinking of all the innovative, creative things that librarians are doing with blogs it is underselling them considerably. So, I agree with you that this does amount to "irresponsible".
Sheila
Posted by: Sheila Webber | March 4, 2005
Sarah, I count on your blog to help me to keep our Library patrons up to date on what's going on.
Posted by: Pat | March 4, 2005
Ms. Hayden did wonders for ALA.
Thanks Gorman!
And we wonder why Asscroft called us "hysterical"
Gorman: you have just set the membership drive for ALA back 200 years. YOU IDIOT!
Posted by: Whatthehell | March 7, 2005
Ashamed? Embarassed? Uh..., no.
Relax.
Gorman's an interesting thoughtful guy who's done great things for the profession. If 900 words of satirical fluff can "set the membership drive for ALA back 200 years" then y'all had better close up shop.
He's right that most blogs are not worth the time it takes you to run through 'em.
He's wrong to imply that this kind of technology is not going to transform the world of communication as radically as the press did 500 years ago.
And he might just be yanking yr chain...
I've got work to do. Y' want me to read yr blog? Make it worth my time.
Posted by: T Scott | March 8, 2005
