Bloggers are everywhere - they seem to be coming out of the woodwork, literally! With millions of blogs out there, and with the mainstream media playing catch up, bloggers at times are at the forefront of information dispersal. A blogger was the first one to break the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, another was the first to find evidence of air-brushing in Reuters photos, and so on. Some even credit themselves with being instrumental in Joe Lieberman's loss to Ned Lamont in the Democratic primaries.
It looks like the politicians are also taking note. John Edwards and family have been actively blogging and trying to cultivate bloggers for their cause, McCain and Hillary have bloggers on their payroll, and each activity, speech and personal history of the candidates is a serious topic of discussion on the blogosphere.
And this is an international phenomenon - we see Chinese bloggers writing under the guise of anonymity, Indian bloggers writing about everything from the failures of their cricket team to raising funds for tsunami victims and British bloggers criticizing the Blair administration for the mess that is the Iraq War.
Over a period of time, we (bloggers) have come to believe that our opinions really count and that we are making a difference, especially when it comes to politics - I mean, isn't that the best way to ensure that we're making the world a better place? We can make sure that "good" candidates win and hence solve the world's problems.
I sometimes wonder... are we giving ourselves too much importance as bloggers? Do our opinions matter as much as we'd like them to?
A classic case in point is that of the Lieberman-Lamont Senate race. "Liberal bloggers" (as they were termed by the media) were influential in ensuring that Lieberman lost the democratic primary. This was hailed as a great success; it is as though the following message was sent out to the world: Beware — we're bloggers and we have arrived! But then, what happened in the actual election? Lamont loses to Lieberman, and now the Democrats are short an experienced senator!
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JustOneMan
FACE THE FACTS - When politicians pay or feed information to bloggers they (bloggers) become nothing more than propgandists....when you look at the idiots blogging for politicians - on the left and right -they are just a bunch of paid staffers carrying out the wishes of their masters..
JustOneMan
2 - Dave Nalle
Whose wishes are you carrying out, JoM? Is it Jesus?
Dave
3 - JustOneMan
Dave Nailee,
What the fuck are you talking about???
JOM
4 - Dave Nalle
Now, to address the actual content of the article.
I think it's pretty clear that someone other than bloggers takes blogging pretty seriously, because almost every mainstream news outlet now has a blog and also offers up quotes from blogs on their broadcasts or in their publications.
If nothing else, blogs are an easy way to get provocative quotes and bits of insight from a broader section of the public than the usual talking heads, and the media has cashed in on that, thereby elevating the status of bloggers in general.
Dave
5 - JustOneMan
No I think the opposite the MSM has paid propagandists that are bringing down the level of discourse and the ability of independent thinkers to be heard....this imo will lead to a bunch of talking heads eventually running this place...
JOM
6 - alessandro nicolo
Should blogging be called blahgging? The only problem with blogging is that there are no standards. The barriers to entry are zilch. That means any person with the most remedial of abilities (like me) can write about anything. On the other, it has given quite a bit of exposure for great writers who were never given a shot. It's also shown that some mainstream writers who earn serious coin shouldn't be. In this light, JOM and Dave make fair points. Some people do use it for propaganda but the fact they are doing so only points to the importance of blogging. Quite frankly, I'm not interested in influencing people. Celebrity tried and lost to Bush. Bloggers should simply seek for knowledge and let the rest follow through.
7 - troll
*The only problem with blogging is that there are no standards. *
you mean like ethical standards - ?
funny that you should bring it up...
(sorry - couldn't resit...feel free to delete this comment)
8 - Dave Nalle
There are certainly no ethical standards, but it's been amply demonstrated that the same is true for the MSM these days. Remember Dan Rather?
In blogging and in writing for the MSM you can trust what you read up to the point where you trust the author. What was it Reagan used to say - 'trust but verify'? If you're suspicious, then check out the facts for yourself or at least go to more than one source.
I know that when I write I try to make sure that facts are checked and documented, but I'm still trying to make a point. But to make that point effectively it helps a lot if you stick with the truth, even if it's the truth as you see it. If you see it well, then others will see it too.
Of course, in the realm of comments on blogs there are no standards of morality or ethics, as has been brilliantly demonstrated recently by several users here on BC.
Dave
9 - Christopher Rose
Dave, you've really never mastered the art of letting sleeping dogs lie, have you? Oh, and YOU don't stick with the truth, you stick with what you see as the truth. The difference is enormous...
I think people's opinions about standards, online or off, tell a lot about what that person really thinks. You clearly assert that there are none, so why would you bother to have an ethical standard yourself?
I passionately believe there are standards, that they matter and that those who have standards are easy to discern. Believing that, I have to have an ethical standard too.
How will it play with your freedom of speech schtick if I invoke the MCH Exception and nuke any further repetition of remarks that have already been re-iterated to death? I for one am so fucking bored with certain recent subjects...
I'm already going to strengthen my application of the pre-existing comments guidelines in the Politics section as very few people in that section of BC seem fully acquainted with the spirit of brotherly love we wish to foster.
That may well conflict with your apparent desire to make exaggerated and insulting remarks to your colleagues here in the comments space. You can stop doing it or I can start deleting anything remotely critical, which would seriously impinge on a lot of people, not least myself. Which do you prefer Dave, some much needed self-restraint or the heavy hand of censorship?
Inquiring minds want to know...
10 - Clavos
How will it play with your freedom of speech schtick if I invoke the MCH Exception and nuke any further repetition of remarks that have already been re-iterated to death?
Would that include shark? Or does he continue to get a bye?
11 - Christopher Rose
Clavos: Shark, one of your BC Writer colleagues if you didn't know, hasn't been getting a bye. If I heavyhandedly suppress people's comments when they're worried about what's going on in the comments space, it can only aggravate things. I'm therefore trying to walk the fine line between allowing people to explore the issue and stamping the life out of this place.
I'm ultimately responsible for what goes on in the comments space and have already made my views known as to the errors of Dave (hmm, sounds like a band name, The Errors of Dave! Country Ska possibly?).
12 - Thinker
The window of opportunity is open! Free speech is alive like never before. Yes, sometimes the politicos get the blogs to do their dirty work... but I think for the most part blogs have contributed to political skepticism like never before in history. The sphere of blogsheads is in the next century... but why do Paris Hilton and President Bush act so archaic? That skank throws around words like "faggot" and "nigger"... she is not in touch with today's world. And Bush-- he is the epitome of being soooo last century. He doesn't even know how to use a computer. He can only wage wars from last century. Point of my comment: Go free speech, discussion, skepticism, AND open-mindedness. Discuss with me.
13 - moonraven
Chris,
How long have you been comments editor?
I am asking because I first entered this site in September--getting close to 6 months ago now--and since the moment I first posted a comment, Dave started with his bullying, personal attacks, lying and general abuse toward me because I disagreed with his political point of view.
More to the point, I CALLED him on that behavior IMMEDIATELY. And I also made a demand for factual and informational support for statements--a demand that was pooh poohed, ignored and which finally produced a few piddling links here and there--largely to other OPINIONS and some even to primary and secondary sources that directly contradicted the statements made Dave (and other posters such as clavos).
Chris, writing with presentation of primary and secondary support sources has everything to do with STANDARDS, as well as with CREDIBILITY.
Yet here we are almost 6 months later and so far as I can conclude--given that the past few days a number of posters have been raising hell about Dave's unethical, bullying and mendacious behavior--you have only decided to chide Dave with a few slaps on his posting wrist because a significant number of other posters have joined in with complaints about him.
And you have only decided to do so NOW.
In my book, at least, that doesn't say much for your belief in and commitment to standards. I see that you only respond when the potbanging noise becomes almost deafening (in a virtual sense).
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Christopher Rose, the Blog Critics Magazine Comments Editor and Editor at Large, writes,
"I'm already going to strengthen my application of the pre-existing comments guidelines in the Politics section as very few people in that section of BC seem fully acquainted with the spirit of brotherly love we wish to foster.
.......
Which do you prefer Dave, some much needed self-restraint or the heavy hand of censorship?"
Considering that several highlighted articles in the politics section deal with the issue of freedom of speech, this may get very interesting...
15 - moonraven
Now I would like to say something about the topic of this thread.
1. Yes, bloggers are giving themselves WAY too much importance. Most bloggers (I don't know what percentage, but it's got to be way up there) are just folks who, if they weren't blogging, would be putting that same kind of energy into the following: writing letters to the editor of newspapers (but there you take the risk that they won't be published), sticking bumperstickers on their vehicles and wearing tee shirts with slogans on them.
Back in the 70s, Fran Leibowitz said: "If nobody wants to hear from you, they don't want to hear from your tee shirt".
Good point, and highly applicable to the majority of bloggers.
2. A good blog, as it gains readers, can become a very worthwhile part of the mass media. But if it's a good blog, it should follow journalistic standards of documentation and ethical presentation.
That means it can't be lying about events and it can't be just a shill for a company, a politician or a product.
That also means that ideology needs to take a backseat (WAY back there in the former territory of Rosa Parks) to information.
3. Unless a blog makes a committment to the standards referenced above, it will not gain credibility and it will not be seen as part of the professional media.
And that means one's sources can not be protected. The San Francisco blogger who has been doing jail time for refusing to hand over a video he made may well spend another 6 months in jail--a lot longer than the so-called professional journalists who have done jail time for refusing to reveal sources.
4. There's no way to police--I don't like that word, either--the blogger sites in Internet to prevent abuses. And also no way to pull the plug on those that are just nose-picking in a public venue. Or masturbating in a public venue either.
It's vitally important, in my opinion, that folks contributing articles and comments to this site and others that get a fair amount of traffic commit themselves to ethical standards.
Without that bloggers will have LESS impact and importance, rather than more.
16 - Dave Nalle
Moonraven, you are aware that your past comments on BC are still available for anyone to view, right? That being the case, saying silly things like you do in #13 would seem like a pretty big mistake. Christopher can easily go back and read that thread, just like anyone else and see exactly how everyone there was behaving.
For those who'd like to check it out, the original Chavez thread can be found here
Dave
17 - Dave Nalle
To Chris R. from #9:
Dave, you've really never mastered the art of letting sleeping dogs lie, have you?
I'm trying very hard, Christopher, and at leasdt here it's halfway on-topic. When people take their vendetta onto every discussion thread and totally disrupt the politics section, it's a disservice to the authors of the articles which aren't getting discussed. If you aren't going to delete off-topic comments, what am I supposed to do?
Oh, and YOU don't stick with the truth, you stick with what you see as the truth. The difference is enormous...
I'm actually working on an article about this. Truth is subjective. It's an opinion about what facts mean and what the intentions of actions are. There's no truer phrase than 'the truth as I see it', and this is NOT unique to me. Don't think that your truth trumps mine in any way.
I think people's opinions about standards, online or off, tell a lot about what that person really thinks. You clearly assert that there are none, so why would you bother to have an ethical standard yourself?
There are no operating objective standards of ethics in blogging or journalism. There are lots of great ethical ideas out there and lots of principled writers, but there's no 'authority' which sets standards for the medium.
Ultimately it's up to each author to determine their own ethics and up to each reader to assess the ethics of the authors. Personally I set strict limits on what I am willing to do and what I'm willing to put up with. I try to apply the same standard to others which I apply to myself. That seems like a good starting point. I tend to be a moral/ethical absolutist. There are certain things which I think have to be absolutely off limits.
I passionately believe there are standards, that they matter and that those who have standards are easy to discern. Believing that, I have to have an ethical standard too.
But those are YOUR standards and THEIR standards. They aren't universal and they aren't laid out in some formal way for everyone to follow, are they?
We should all have ethical standards and make them as pure and rational as possible. But in the real world we still have to deal with the fact that ethics become awfully muddy in day to day practice.
How will it play with your freedom of speech schtick
That 'schtick' as you dismissively call it IS a set of ethical standards for my conduct as well as the conduct of others.
if I invoke the MCH Exception and nuke any further repetition of remarks that have already been re-iterated to death? I for one am so fucking bored with certain recent subjects...
You think I'm not?
One thing about ethical standards is that there are levels to them. There's an ideal and then there are steps down from that ideal which take practical considerations into account, such as the greater good.
The highest ethical standard when it comes to free speech is to not limit any form of expression. That ideal isn't always practical in the real world.
The next step down from that ideal is to temper free speech with a limited consideration of the 'common good'. Free speech is then limited at the point where it interferes with the rights of others. This is an acceptable alternative to the ideal, so long as the limitation of free speech is applied impartially.
In the current situation we've reached the point where the free speech of some is interfering with the free speech of the general body of participants. In such a situation it falls on authority AKA Christopher Rose to apply restrictions impartially and as lightly as minimally necessary to restore an environment conducive to free speech.
I know I blathered on a bit in the above, but it seemed like you wanted to frame this in ethical terms, so there it is as I see it, having thought it through.
I'm already going to strengthen my application of the pre-existing comments guidelines in the Politics section as very few people in that section of BC seem fully acquainted with the spirit of brotherly love we wish to foster.
I'm all for brotherly love. My family is originally from Philadelphia.
That may well conflict with your apparent desire to make exaggerated and insulting remarks to your colleagues here in the comments space.
I have ZERO desire to do that, as you should already know. There's a huge difference between wanting to make disruptive and insulting comments, and being forced to respond to such comments. When I do respond I actually try to bring
down the level of invective, while still making my point.
As I've said before, you can edit me all you want and I won't be offended a bit so long as it's fairly applied and within the established standards.
You can stop doing it or I can start deleting anything remotely critical, which would seriously impinge on a lot of people, not least myself. Which do you prefer Dave, some much needed self-restraint or the heavy hand of censorship?
I have not been and will never be the source of any kind of personal attack unless I am attacked in that same fashion first myself. In addition, I've been going far beyond that as was recently requested, to completely ignore scores of personal attacks in the last few days.
I have always said that if you apply your restrictions with an even hand I've got no objection to whatever you delete of mine, so long as you treat others the same way.
Your last comment suggests that you think that I'm the source of the problem here and that I'm the one originating personal attacks. If that's really the case then maybe my past assumption that you can edit comments impartially was mistaken. But maybe I misunderstood you. You've done a great job in the past.
Dave
18 - Sibin
Dave,
Yes they are....and that is most because of the sudden popularity of blogs and not necessarily because of any "impact". Also it gives their journalists to express views in a less controlled manner.
I write occasionally for the student newspaper, and even there I have noticed that stories need to be backed up by two or more named sources. We have no such "quality control" for blogs and that is the reason why we will have trouble presenting ourselves in a more serious manner.
Moonraven,
about comment #15 - completely agree...great points. I agree that many bloggers (especially the popular ones) have an ideological trend in their writings and once you have been labelled as belonging to one side of the other, then you have lost a large readership base - the other side...then it becomes a case of "preaching to the choir" so as to speak...
19 - Christopher Rose
Maybe so, Moonraven, but as I said, you were just as bad, and I seem to recall, not in the slightest inhibited about taking the initiative yourself either.
You and others have had a lot of political argy-bargy here but I'm prepared to conjecture that I'm possibly the only person who's read every single word from everybody with full concentration.
As I've said before, and you ought to know better than me with your stronger leftist credentials, a dialectic process ought to resemble a dance as it ebbs and flows, hopefully something like the tango but more often the pogo.
What's important is that courage to be intellectually naked, to not know and not worry about it. None of us know it all and the excessive certainty shown by almost everyone in this politics section truly revolts and depresses me.
We can continue to try and grind personal axes or we can all move along together. Doing the former is just going to result in my heavy-handed use of the delete key, which I'm sure we can all agree is a bad idea. Moving along together, we will learn more about each other and greater truth, even possibly trust, can grow in relationships compounded by time.
Finally, I think you really ought to join BC and write your own articles. It's way harder sticking your neck out than commenting on the poor posture of others.
As I've said to Shark, who already is a BC Writer, you ought to ask that Dave edit them too. The moment they're published you'll know for sure what kind of editor he is.
I've just noticed other comments posted whilst I was writing and reviewing this. I can't respond right now, although I want to, for pressing and grave family reasons. I'll try and catch up with you lot later. But I'd just like to quickly remind Dave, re his #17, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO KEEP COMMENTS ON TOPIC AT BLOGCRITICS! You know this, you twerp! Grrrr!
I'm out.
20 - Dave Nalle
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO KEEP COMMENTS ON TOPIC AT BLOGCRITICS! You know this, you twerp! Grrrr!
Well, of course there's no requirement, but it is certainly a fundamental courtesy to the author of the article, especially when the article is new and fresh like this one.
Dave
21 - Dave Nalle
Going back to the original article...
I sometimes wonder... are we giving ourselves too much importance as bloggers ?
I think that we can't 'give' ourselves importance as bloggers. That's just putting on airs. Our importance is what readers and the media choose to give us, and right now politicians, the media and a limited number of internet users are taking bloggers probably a bit too seriously.
Dave
22 - troll
fuck it...
*I'm trying very hard, Christopher, and at leasdt here it's halfway on-topic. When people take their vendetta onto every discussion thread and totally disrupt the politics section, it's a disservice to the authors of the articles which aren't getting discussed. If you aren't going to delete off-topic comments, what am I supposed to do?*
it is your breach of BC standards that has caused the uproar...what are you going to do about it - ?
how about shut the fuck up on the issue for a minute - if the powers that be want to do anything more about it they'll let us know...
moonraven - good points all imo...but I don't want the bsphere to end up a sterile information environment as the MSM has become
we each have to function as the medium's fact checkers - keep up the good work
23 - Dave Nalle
I agree that many bloggers (especially the popular ones) have an ideological trend in their writings and once you have been labelled as belonging to one side of the other, then you have lost a large readership base - the other side...then it becomes a case of "preaching to the choir" so as to speak...
In my experience a lot of blog readers are way too quick to jump to conclusions based on a very small sample and label people and then write them off or react to them with hostility without really considering their actual opinions. There are an awful lot of closed minds and people who are filtering what they read through their own preconceptions.
we each have to function as the medium's fact checkers
Exactly my point in #8.
Dave
24 - D'oh
Unfortunately, the record is NOT as clear pertaining to other incidents...a current point of contention, hence a difficult problem.
I'm very not pleased to read that Christopher is considering more draconian editorial measures in response to nothing more than some *noise*. It appears to be a poor Answer to the current situation (quieting the rabble rather than the actual point of contention which has the rabble roused).
It's all part of the Digital Frontier we are talking about in this topic...and in a way, on the entire site/blogosphere.
For all the noise, echo, shills, just bad writing, unsubstantiated allegations and deceptions the new Aether remains the greatest leveler of sharing Speech and Thought since Gutenberg.
Ideas are now circulated and examined at the speed of Light in a true example of Lamarckian evolution in the realm of Thought. Reason pokes and prods, research uncovers and elucidates, the rough and tumble hardens resolve...and what emerges is a furtherance of Understanding and Comprehension...sometimes even Exploration of something New.
Whoa...too heavy...to much *gonzo*... but this is something important, far too easy to slide down the path of least resistance just to make things *easier* in the short term rather than better in the long View.
(side note to "Scooter"...part of the price is YOU don't get your usual "last word" by outlasting and outshouting until opposition wearies and goes away..."I tell you three times")
the Tao of D'oh.
25 - Baronius
Most bloggers are fourteen year old girls writing about Justin Timberlake. Maybe the question isn't about what standards apply to all bloggers, or how seriously we should take all bloggers. It's how easy is it for internet users to find blogs with standards.
I think the blogosphere's utterly free market of ideas has been working well. No one thinks about the old media's filtering system, but we all know the difference between Weekly World News and US News and World Report. It takes time. Reputations fluctuate. There's probably a lot of correct information that I miss because it's on untrustworthy blogs. Ditto with the Washington Post.