It's often said that blogs are anti-main stream media, I don't happen to feel that's always the case. However what happened recently at the Washington Post when a blog column was pulled due to the behavior of those who commented made me stop and think.
Jim Brady raises some very important points here that are outside of his decision to shut down one feature. How being anonymous does in some cases make people act in a manner that if they were clearly identifable? I doubt they'd do. He also states his description of the relationship between blogs and the media which I think has some merit:
Even if you could define the blogosphere and the media as discrete entities, I've never understood why they'd be viewed as competitors. If you want to be positive, you could say blogs and the traditional media have a symbiotic relationship; if you want to be more negative, call it parasitic. Either way, they're connected. They co-exist like this: The media writes articles or files reports, then blogs use them as starting points for discussions. When the blogs do this, they almost always provide links back to media Web sites, and there isn't a news media site on the Web that doesn't receive a good chunk of its traffic from blogs. Each entity has an important yet distinct role in this potentially virtuous circle. Blogs don't have big media's capacity for expensive, coordinated news-gathering from Baghdad to Biloxi; newspapers and TV networks, even when they dive into the Web, can't match the (sometimes irresponsible) feistiness and flexibility of the blogs.
It's a really good article and I highly recommend it to all bloggers and readers of the blogs. I also found this at Way West interesting given some of the things I've experienced on a much smaller scale here:
Anyone who reads blogs knows there are an awful lot of trolls out there who aspire to turn the online world into Cross Fire on steroids. Lots of bloggers have reluctantly turned off their comments feature for exactly that reason. Many of us, like myself, who see blogs as the key to reviving journalism, are tired of the endless sibling squabbling between big media and blog media.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Details...
Financial resources & Fun!
Financial Resources:
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Regular Reads
History Mike's Musings
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Blog Archive
...
...
Thank you!
Thanks for visiting Liberal Common Sense...
10 comments:
Technology has only slightly tweaked a phenomena that has been around for ages. We've always had pen names and anonymous letters to editors. Blogs and forums just bring this ability to a wider range of people.
I agree that the internet has made an impact and while I understand the desire for some to remain anonymous there has been a tendency by some to get a bit overblown. I saw some of the comments written on the Washington Post feature that was pulled, after reading some of it I decided to me it wasn't even worth commenting on. More and more often you see blogs that don't allow comments at all or some form of moderation. Usually as a response to a few anonymous people who ruin it for the rest. I'll admit as in the WAPO situation, it just wasn't worth wading into that kind of a fray. Nor am I probably the only one who has felt like that, nor has it been the first time I saw a blogswarm of hatred and anger that really only prevents rational discussion.
Cowardly of me? Perhaps, but then again personal experience has shown me that when things go into an almost feeding frenzy very little can be done. Unless you have a burning desire to throw yourself on to the flames as a self sacrifice.
While the original error by the Post brought this on, I don't think alot of what happened afterwards was necessary.
:-)
I think Jim Brady hit the nail on the head when he said "anonymity". Some people use blogs simply to vent their spleen. They spew, they leave, but they don't check back, so they lose sight of the fact that there was a living, breathing human being on the other end who ALSO has feelings. However, there's the occasional sociopath like Bill White who does check back because he draws strength from others' misery.
At the same time, defense of free speech requires some willingness to risk being offended. However, ideologues need to understand that moderation in expression does not require that one compromise one's ideas. It simply requires that one be respectful of one's interlocutor. Criticize the idea rather than the person. Extremism in thought, but moderation in expression.
I think people should be offended by what I write. I mean, if I can come up with all these ideas to make the world better, why can't the world leaders? I think it is because they are all a bunch of f@#$*&g C@$#%&^%#$s who are full of s%^t, selfish p@#$%s
potty fingers....
:-)
All in all, no matter how advanced technology becomes, there is the on simple truth that will be around forever. And that is the truth that people suck. Little groups ban together and form their ideas and feel that they are all knowing and they must blast anyone that has a difference of opinion no matter how great or slight it may be.
I have said it and I say it again here. The internet, forums, blogs, message boards, what have you, is the pruest form of free speech. I may not agree with you, but we can discuss, debate, and decide who is right, wrong, or agree to disagree. The only thing wrong with this ideal is people.
There are jerks, trolls, (add your own nasty word) and they take advantage of being anonymous and exploit free speech. Yes, we may be offended, but that is the price that must be paid.
That is why I hate little groups that voice their offence and demand that the offensive people or group must be silenced. My favorite reason for this type of censorship is the protection of the children. Hey, how about doing some parenting you moroons. Kids will find things that they shouldn't, but talk to them. If you don't, they will find out themselves. But I get off point a little. I do that.
People will give their opinions whether asked for or not. So let's not worry if they get pissed off if we ban them or disable anonymous. It's your blog and your kingdom. If people write that you are a facist, who cares? They are banned anyway.
That's true C, but I was going for both the personal and the larger picture. I don't feel bad about the few I've deleted. The larger picture for me was that many people acting in such poor taste that a web feature was pulled and then they slammed the guy who did it and are still slamming him. He's a cry baby and a whiner and on and on. Washington Post has no requirement to provide a forum, so if people abuse it? It's gone, if it was really that important (which it wasn't given the majority who came to bitch didn't even go there on a regular basis they were told to go by other big bloggers to complain) they should have realized that actions have consequences. Yet as usual, the larger group pays for the actions of a few who don't have self control. That scenario is played out in many different areas of life, sometimes the majority manages to deal with them on their own, sometimes? Doesn't happen that way.
Thus every action creates a reaction. Was this issue on the Washington Post's website fair? Hell no, but that is life. So, whether you want to hear it or not, people suck.
The rowdy few always ruined it for the majority. A fact we all must deal with, or we just kill the rowdy few. But God and the law might have issue with that. ;)
The initial reporter screwed up, but she corrected it. That didn't seem to make a difference in the call to action to "express" thoughts that really had no bearing on it. Imagine the worst moments on excite times four...that's what it was like. So Jim Brady pulled it. Then he became the target and still is. I don't think today helped though, since it appears to have just re-awakened it all. But I learned that the hard way too, sometimes it's just better to walk away from some of this shit rather than to defend yourself to people that have no real interest in what your point of view is anyway.
I still like his view on the blogs vs media and believe he is right that there is a relationship or at least can be.
:-)
"...they should have realized that actions have consequences."
Far too many people don't really realize that. Nor do they realize that in a civilized society responsibility is supposed to balance freedom.
As for blogs, I'll take the bad with the good. I think this is an important forum for people with the inclination to use and that being able to debate and discuss in this format is a healthy way to exchange ideas...as long as you're willing to take responsibility for what you say.
Being willing to apologize goes a long way, and is often neither used nor understood by certain participants who choose to remain nameless.
Post a Comment