The late John O'Gorman often commented that the brothers of the Irish Province had computer capacity that far exceeded anything they could even dream about.
And yet if anyone did a simple study of Dominican websites they would quickly realise how inept the Order is in the field of electronic communication.
Take today, April 2, 2008 and read the home pages of the Irish, English and German(Teutonia) web pages. There is only one word to describe them - appalling. All three homepages are boring, tardy and have nothing to offer or entice a casual reader. There is nothing 'lively' or interesting about these websites.
The Trinidad Dominicans are all talk about updating their webpage but when you examine further you discover it all died a death last August.
The last item of news on the webpage of the Australian Dominicans is announcing the death of Fr Peter Knowles on March 12.
The last update on the website made at Santa Sabina was in August 2007.
The reality of these web pages fits clearly into the 'clerical culture' that George B Wilson SJ writes about in his book.
It may be said that it is better to see the glass half full than half empty. And that may well be true. But it is also important for someone to keep shouting and criticising those things that are so badly done.
How can Dominicans talk about the mystery and intricacies of God if this is the standard that is offered readers of the web around the world?
Maybe the question should be asked as to how serious the Order of Preachers takes its 'preaching' mission.
11 comments:
Interesting blog.
I can't say I agree with your comments on religious websites.
First of all, you seem to presume that religious websites must follow some set formula. It's an impression I've made having read your blog.
I don't think the websites of all religious orders should or need be the same kind of website. It's perfectly acceptable for some to be directory types, giving the more basic information like where communities live, their phone numbers/websites/email addresses/etc. Others can also try to present their organisation in the best light possible, encouraging people to consider joining, or making use of their services. And others could try to give latest news and events. And finally, some could try to do some direct apostolic work through their website, like daily reflections, catechetical work, etc.
Not all religious orders are capable of doing all of the above. Not all have the intelligence to use what they already have (news, etc.) and channel it through web communication.
Not all are interested in the effort, for valid reasons.
The "casual reader" is, for the likes of the English and Irish websites you mention, probably going to be living in the U.S.A. Make enquiries about the visitors to these websites (ask the webmasters), and you'll discover that the vast majority of visitors are from outside the regions for which the websites are put up. The same is true for many English language websites put in place for national or regional use. It's just like that.
Parish websites, another disaster, are an area in which a lot of effort can be wasted. But most parish clergy who try their hand at having a website don't understand how to communicate through this medium. They don't know how to adapt website structure and page design to what they wish to communicate. In fact, they probably don't know exactly why they want a website in the first place.
There is a rather unsophisticated understanding of communication by internet, evident from the time wasted on them and by their critics.
Websites are exceptionally limited in what they can achieve. Used well, they can be part of a good communications strategy for any organisation. Used badly and they can do damage.
Bad websites can give a lot away, but only in very simplistic way. An organisation with a poor quality website does not mean that the whole organisation is "poor quality". It means that somebody who has the responsability for the site is incompetent and uncooperative, and that the head honcho is also incompetent or afraid. And probably more importantly, the web person probably doesn't have the support of others where it's needed.
Yes, there's lots of praise for good work, but little support to keep it going.
What about the good websites then?
And what is a "good website"?
There cannot be one size fits all.
In my opinion, the English website you refer too is quite good. It is a directory website, and gives simple explanations of the organisation; its design is simple and pleasing and suits the message which the organisation wishes to give. It doesn't give much away on individual priories or individual Dominicans, but why should it? It doesn't have a news section that is worth looking at, but that must be part of the communications strategy that's been adopted by the organisation. It doesn't try to preach. That must also be part of the communications strategy.
Not wishing to communicate can be a blessing. A single page website would be much better than some of the nonsense put up for religious organisations. The incompetent individuals spending time on websites would be better off dealing with people face to face.
Before criticising and "shouting" as you put it, perhaps some constructive help would be, well, helpful.
Are you competent to lead a communiations office in your organisation, bringing people along with you, encouraging them to think of new ideas and improve standards, or maintaining a commitment to a new weekly or daily feature?
If not, shut up.
Preaching? Generally rotten. Last Sunday we were treated to a meaningless jumble of partial sentences. A sample: We see God is the daffodil. .... In the tulip we see the heart of Mary.... The Pearse brothers were legally murdered ... How sad that many Irish congregations go home hungry Sunday after Sunday.
Thank you for both of these comments. But still do not understand why people wish to remain anonymous.
Both comments have much to say and most interesting.
As to the competency the first author refers to - maybe it is not a question of competency. As to the 'shut up' reference, thank you. But no thank you.
As to 'strategy' it is a lovely word, but!
As to the comment re preaching in Irish churches, the comment tells the story exactly as it is. And again, the piece written by George Wilson SJ captures the scene.
The first comment re readership of English and Irish websites being mainly an audience in the US. I'm not sure about that. It is only in the last month that this blog is being read in the US - 14 States, the main readership is in Ireland, UK, Germany, Italy, France and Canada. It is read in 20 countries around the world.
Okay, I'll stick my neck out and say I would love to produce a web page for the organisation to which I belong, but that is not possible in the present dispensation.
Again, thank you for the comment and it makes many interesting comments, which hopefully will prove helpful for this blog.
A webpage or a website? There's a difference.
Go ahead. Produce a website that can represent an organisation and that can carry what the organisation wishes to communicate. See what your boss says about your result.
Blogs and websites are not at all alike. You should ask those in the know where the visitors to those two websites are from.
Produce your own webpage? Surely web design and technical concerns are the business of professionals? There's far too many so called clerics who think they're infallible once the bishop takes his hands off their heads. Typical clerical arrogance to presume infallability in all fields.
Thank you for your comments. And valid points are being made.
Of course there is a difference between a web page and a website and between a blog and a website.
But why the anonymity? Maybe it is understandable why the last writer wishes to remain anonymous.
I am very interested in the preaching comments. The amount of vacuous nonsense spoken in lieu of a homily in most churches (in my experience) is a travesty of the liturgy. On Easter Sunday last, I heard a theologically accurate and certainly prepared homily. It was poorly delivered but failed utterly to connect with people's lives.
On St. Patrick's Day I was at Mass with my wife and children in another church. The homily was appalling. The priest (quite a young man) spoke throughout in a sing-song voice. It was utter rubbish, more suitable to a badly written Ladybird book about St. Patrick than a homily at Eucharist.
Let's be honest. Bad preaching is endemic. But very few of us are prepared to sa anything to the homilist after Mass about it. Perhaps we get what we deserve?
Well if you're so brilliant at websites then set one up - or shut up. No use complaining if you're not going to pull your weight: or are you more typical of the clerical arrogance you despise than you would like to admit to yourself?????
Firstly, Michael, thank you for your comment and I can fully empathise with you. (This Michael is not the author of the bolog)
Maybe people are 'afraid' to say anything because of the role the priest has played.
Why not try and talk to the priest and tell him that you had difficulty with his sermon.
There is a great quote in Wilson's book just on this. I will print it here when I have the book to hand.
See the comment on the blog re preaching. It is a quote from Wilson re priests talking nonsense.
And to the anonymous writer, thank you for your comment.
Post a Comment