Checks and Balances
via memeorandum
Here’s a nice attack on what we do – both those of us who write for this space and those who read it. Granted, it’s not an attack on us specifically, but on this grand revolution of which we are a part.
I’m not entirely sure why the Web logs attack the MSM and vice versa. They each have their place and function, and some at least, have learned to appreciate and capitalize on our symbiosis.
For the rest, including the WSJ’s Mr. Rago, they would be well served to follow their own advice and avoid simplistic analysis and ill-informed dismissal.
In fact, Mr. Rago notes that “democracy does not work well, so to speak, without checks and balances.” I have yet to find a greater, more robust sphere of checks and balances than the blogosphere’s, a place where my own assumptions and beliefs have been (more than once) challenged and as a result (more than once) modified.
Point: If we listen to each other, we can learn from each other. If we don’t, if all we do is scream at every post and every other commenter beyond ourselves, then yes, we are guilty of what Mr. Rago fears, of being “written by fools to be read by imbeciles.”
I hope we all re-commit ourselves to proving Mr. Rago wrong.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “Checks and Balances”
Mr Rago is right that blogs have a tendency to be reckless and superficial. But some don’t. And part of our responsibility is to seek out those that best reflect our interests and temperament.
I sought out The Moderate Voice because I like to understand the various sides of an issue so I can form a more informed opinion.
I often think that the MSM could be improved by always having 3 talking heads or pundits rather that just someone from the left and right. Having a third voice that digests the issues from a central point of view would be attractive to me.
I am a fan of Chris Mathews because I think he usuallly provides that point of view.
I agree with just about your entire comment Paul. There is also something to remember: some political blogs are blogs where people attempt to analyze the news (bigger picture), others try to ‘rally the base’, again others are more like columnists, again others are true experts who tend to write about one specific subject, other blogs are meant to be communities for people who have certain basis political views in commonand, etc. etc.
In other words, one must be careful to speak about ‘the blogs’ and what they are doing. Any MSM article that spends attention to this phenomenon should point out these differences.
Anyway, I agree that there should be ‘three voices’ in the MSM. My guess is that most people would generally agree with the ‘third voice’…
“The blogs” is about as significant as “the written word”. Blogs are not just political blogs, there are blogs on almost anything that may occur to you. In fact, I bet the sum of cat and dog blogs is probably bigger than political blogs. Some blogs are for regular people to talk about regular things and some are highly specialized ones where experts talk about things they are experts in and have no meaning or interest to non-specialists.
But since we are talking about political blogs I’ll give the writer one point. Yes, a majority of blogs do not promote independent thought or analisis. A great majority of TV doesn’t encourage any kind of thought at all, and yet the entire concept isn’t critisized, as it is assumed that it is up to the user to sift through the piles of garbage and get to the nuggets of quality.
Fact is, the regular media y much like the blogs in one sense; there are an almost unlimited number of printed media, but only a small minority is widely known and read. Most of those have a clear editorial line that places them on one or another “team” in the political spectrum. Occasionally you will get an author, or very occasionally a whole publication that is high quality and is not wedded to one side of the political spectrum.
Just like the blogs.
The difference with blogs is that they are instantly available, so that no qualification is needed to have one, making the number of “useless” blogs grow. On the other hand, if you have talent and a message and skill, you don’t need political connections on a blog, you will be linked to, you will have a readership, and people from all over the world will be able to read what you have to contribute, free of charge. And with luck (as happens here) they will be able to discuss issues in an open and respectfull forum.
Paul- I love Chris Matthews! It does seem like he tries to get at the meat of an issue by having a variety of views, and asking the right questions. Its much more interesting than watching two polar opposites shout each other down. Joe Scarborough also often takes this approach.
Since the sourcing for one AP Iraq story is possibly questionable thus making all AP Iraq stories suspect, does this idiotic WSJ Editorial make all WSJ Editorials idiotic also?
Just askin’
I think MvdG is right when he points out that not all blogs have the same theme, certainly there are bogs on the left and right that are mostly preaching to the choir and read more like an AM radio program with all of the name calling. TMV and other centrist blogs in particular are a different animal and I have had fun reading different perspectives here finding many of the insights have been educational and illuminating.