Latest Silly Blast At Bloggers
Dean
I notice that most dire warnings about blogs and bloggers are almost always obviously based on lack of experience. The #1 most naive claim is that blogs become "echo chambers" wherein people only rant and furiously agree with each other and only link others who agree with them--which describes only a tiny minority of blogs. The next most naive claim is that they are "unaccountable." Bwaha! It is to laugh. Bloggers are every bit as accountable as the mainstream press--they can and DO get sued for libel. No one is immune except the tiny minority who go out of their way to maintain complete anonymity (which is harder to do than it sounds, and immediately drops a blogger's credibility--none of the most popular bloggers are completely anonymous).
Anyway, Joe Gandelman notes the latest ridiculously silly and naive generalizations about bloggers in the mainstream press.
Man. It's like listening to some old fart yell "get a horse!"
Maybe we're the exception, eh? :)
There is a silly meme that circulates around the blogosphere, and in the mainstream press, at least a couple of times a year: the "blogs are just echo chambers of people furiously agreeing with each other."
It's never had much truth to it, and never will. There are a few blogs specifically like that--Daily Kos and Right Wing News come to mind, but even these will occasionally link to articles they disagree with just to explain why they disagree with them.
The vast majority of bloggers simply do not fit any one specific or narrow range of opinions, and link and talk to people of differing views regularly.
Okay, I know that bloggers *can* get sued, but I don't recall any in the U.S. who *have* gotten sued. I know there have been threats. I say "in the U.S." because the U.S. libel system and first amendment protections are unique in the world's jurisprudence.
And I'd say you'd have to operationalize "accountable" to argue that they are "every bit as accountable." I mean what's accountable? Do they lose their job because they lifted a quote? Or do they lose some audience?
What's the direct equivalence of accountability? Is it the individual journalist (a la Jack Kelley?) or the institution (a la USA Today)?
I'm not knocking the fact that the meme of non-accountability is misguided, but just trying to ferret out some particulars. It's a fascinating discussion if people are willing to engage it rather than spout off columns. (And I'd note that everyone who tweaks bloggers in print does so knowing full well that it may be the most read column they write all year).
As for being "every bit as" accountable: well, bloggers have lost their jobs for things they've written on blogs that probably wouldn't have gotten them fired if they were reporters. On the other hand, they're generally way less vulnerable to charges of plagiarism or excessive politicizing.
On the flip side, most bloggers--unlike, say, opinion columnists--are subject to pretty much instant peer review and merciless exposure of any mistaken or questionable thing they say--up to and including your challenging me on whether they're "every bit as" accountable, which as you point out is hard to quantify.
Let's put it this way: in some ways they're more accountable, in other ways they're less accountable. My own gut says it balances out pretty well. Especially because, honestly, someone who's got a reputation for regularly being stupid or dishonest usually sinks pretty fast (unless they're hyper-partisans throwing raw meat at the Party Faithful, but there are few of those and even they get knocked around when they get way out of line).
In that sense, accountability is absent.
But you're also right that nobody has gotten fired from a major newspaper just because their byline was "moxie." (very inside blogging reference, there)
:-)
That's pretty funny.
With this
During the campaign both Right and Left Blogs not only preached to the choir. Most left and Right blogs seldom made a real ATTEMPT to win over people who might still have open minds. People who thought web logs and the Internet had a role in persuading would be disappointed if they monitored blogs on both sides as closely as I did — and I do.
THE REASON: Each side was absolutely convinced they were going to win. Each side had a mindset. Each side quoted almost exclusively those web logs with whom they agreed and often belittled or blasted those that did not agree with them. Weblogs comprehensively helped firm up partisan world view — a perspective — a party line — and kept their respective partisans informed and to a certain extent in line. This wasn’t done as part of a genius, imposed grand plan — It happened via each blogger’s preference. (Emphasis his)*.
That looks like a proponent of the echo chamber school of thought to me. Not all of it, firming up the schools of thought is what happened. During the run-up to the election I learned a lot at the Emperor's place smacking trolls around. We would find links to back up what we were saying, and they had to be links that a lefty would accept. Like the UN, Fed Gov't or MSM reports. In the process we learned even more and unlearned some stuff we thought we knew. The regulars there are friends and hang out together online but that's not the only place.
As for quoting the opposition to belittle or blast, that's debate. It might not have always been nice, but it was debate. I learned how to use curse words in all kinds of new ways there.
But I also liked this quote from the same link
On my site www.themoderatevoice.com I have a HUGE blogroll divided into categories. And I USE IT. I READ IT. I read ALL SIDES. I wanted to monitor what the Right and Left blogs were saying and also watch the body language of spokespeople from both sides on TV. (emphasis his)
You see because, unlike us EXTREMISTS# on the LEFT and RIGHT, he's MODERATE.
*Any resemblance between what I quoted and this post is entirely coincidental.
Seriously.
#EXTREMISTS being the opposite of MODERATES.