Yet another anti-blog statement by a “librarian” (Updated)

[Update: I feel obligated to add a bit more to my posting on this topic. See changes/additions in brackets below.]

I haven’t joined the hundreds (thousands?) of others who commented negatively on Michael Gorman’s well-publicized anti-blogging diatribe a few months back[, until now.] I know [just] enough about him and his background to not be surprised by anything he has to say. I am just about as anti-ALA (American Library Association) as you can get. The fact that this guy is that organization’s incoming president is more proof (not that I needed any) of its need for reform. There are some areas of ALA that are notable exceptions such as LITA, but my experience after having been involved in a number of areas for years has been [pretty] negative.

As an aside, the recent angry row in ALA Council over the “audacity” of giving Laura Bush an honorary award is yet more proof that this organization is [dysfunctional]. Yes, I am conservative in my views in general, which automatically places me on the extreme fringe of librarianship. However, even librarians from the more liberal side who are heavily involved in ALA (see here and here) have figuratively rolled their eyes over this.

I heard today (see link above) about an editorial written by Blaise Cronin, dean of the library school at Indiana University, that criticizes blogs and bloggers in much the same dismissive tone as that used by Gorman. This is another guy whom I’ve never taken a liking to, although unlike Gorman, I know next to nothing about him other than that he tends to be controversial. If I were an Indiana student, alum, or faculty member, I’d really be cringing right now.

[I should make it clear that this is not a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of a form of communication that I like and benefit from. Actually, I don't object to criticisms of blogs and blogging. There are problems or weaknesses that reasonable persons can see with this mode of communication and publication, so there is a grain of truth or substance to some of the criticisms I've read. What I do object to, though, is the over-generalization to which many critics like Gorman and Cronin seem prone, as well as the rather arrogant and dismissive tone that tends to be used. Sure, blogging is faddish right now, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously or that it doesn't have value. A recent online article I first heard about at It's All Good, published by Knowledge@Wharton, made a good point (among others) when it stated that while blogging almost certainly will lose some of its current trendiness, blogs will "continue to be disruptive to traditional media."

Blogs, to me, are a true "killer app" -- an indispensible way for me to keep more readily informed about what's going on in areas that interest me. Knowledge is power and blogs, even with their inherent biases or singular points of view, are an incredibly valuable resource that helps me do my job better just about every day.]

ALA = Democratic Party

I had a thought yesterday as I was struggling to articulate what pains me so much about the American Library Association (ALA) these days, especially as I read about the special screening of Michael Moore’s latest movie and Richard Clarke’s keynote address at ALA Annual in Orlando. There is absolutely no attempt at objectivity or even-handedness that I can see in these (and other) “progressive” moves on ALA’s part. Why do I dislike ALA so much? Well, how long do you have to read the litany of reasons ;-) I articulate some of those reasons below after having been very active in at least two major sections of ALA (LITA and ALCTS) for a number of years, after dealing with ALA Publishing and also participating in a search process to fill a position within ALA. In other words, these are not just the views of an uninformed outsider, but one who has participated and been involved. I also make these statements realizing that they are generalities, there are exceptions, as always.

Anyway, back to the thought I had: ALA is much like the traditional Democratic Party. It is an attempt to be all things to all people, which falls so far short of the mark, it’s ridiculous, due in no small measure to the litany of special interests that control and influence it. It is a bloated, overly expensive organization that, in my opinion and in my experience, fails to deliver real value to its members. It has some basic societal ideals that are laudable and good (freedom to read, equal access for all, and many others), but it never seems to truly deliver on its promises. It gets so caught up in “social responsibility” issues, rabid defense against what it terms censorship, and left wing radical agendas that it tends to miss the boat entirely when it comes to confronting and dealing with many important library issues such as funding, professional development, and others.

I decided a couple of years ago to call it quits. I did not renew my membership. I couldn’t afford it anymore, I couldn’t afford to travel to ALA conferences, and I just didn’t feel right about contributing to an organization that so blatantly disregards, and even attacks, my worldview. I have many colleagues whom I admire and respect (yes, some of them are those right wing radical evangelical Christians like me whom everyone loves to pillory) who continue to maintain their membership in this organization. That’s ok, and maybe I’m not taking the right step on this one. Maybe there is a need to continue to try to work within the system to change it for the better. I don’t know. Maybe I’ll change my mind in the future, but for now, I’m content with being out of that scene.