Posted on 03/13/2005 10:55:40 PM PST by elhombrelibre
Blogs.
The very word elicits tension. Or so it seemed at the recent Politics Online Conference 2005, put on last week by the Institute for Democracy & the Internet at the George Washington University. A breakout session titled "Tracking the Buzz through Blogs" demonstrated the intense emotionalism embedded in this new medium, as well as the intellect and diversity of sanity among the men and women (but mostly men) behind the keyboards.
The session's panelists were sane enough: Peter Daou, formerly of the Kerry-Edward campaign, now of the Daou Report, Patrick Ruffini, webmaster for Bush-Cheney '04, Nicco Mele formerly of the Dean campaign, and Ken Deutsch from Issue Dynamics, Inc. Each gave a cogent defense of the medium and discussed its virtues and limitations, with minor polite disagreements peppered throughout their remarks. Mercilessly, each eschewed any political speechifying and treated one another with professional respect.
But during the Q&A, the crowd collectively obsessed about whether bloggers ought to be treated as journalists or not. The controversy stems from a district court judge's recent order that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) take up the matter of certain loopholes in the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which allow for relatively unregulated Internet speech. Bloggers and First Amendment enthusiasts are exercised over the proposition that the federal government might begin to regulate blogs.
The panelists took a generally libertarian view of the question. Let people decide whom to believe, seemed to be the consensus. Trust is king in the blogosphere. Fakers, posers and con artists won't last long. Many attendees, however, were unsatisfied.
"But what about all these anonymous bloggers?" an attendee demanded.
"I know of a case where a guy was posing as 'Libertarian Girl' and he's really a 50-year-old man," offered another.
"I think blogs are dead," piped one surly attendee.
The general response to each of these utterances, and many more like them, was: so what? If you don't like blogs don't read them. The beauty of blogs is in the unfettered way in which they facilitate our First Amendment right. And whether you like it or not, that Amendment protects a blogger's right to be anonymous. And an idiot.
One fellow chose to test the strength of that last assertion. Somehow the subject of Fox News came up and one bloated, goateed attendee went into a frenzy. Snarl-faced and glassy-eyed, he declared, "Fox News isn't journalism! It's a direct arm of the Republican National Committee! They meet with the Republican National Committee every morning!" Even Nicco from the Dean campaign looked uncomfortable.
Turns out the fellow was a blogger with "The Raw Story," a vehemently pro-homosexual blog and webzine, which specializes in "outing" Republican members of Congress. While not a member of the panel, he took it upon himself to insert his opinion on just about everything discussed or mumbled by anyone in the room.
"If you're a rightwinger, you are a fascist," he vociferated to no one in particular.
"I'm a rightwinger," I responded. "Am I a fascist?"
"Pretty much."
It dawned on me: this clown's free speech was more of a nuisance in this, a public setting than in electronic form on his blog. At least when it's on his blog, I need neither to hear nor read it.
Garance Franke-Ruta from the American Prospect suggested out loud that the blogging industry impose "community norms" to prevent libelous postings, like the ones recently revealed to be the handwork of Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich staffer Joseph Steffen, which cruelly implied Baltimore Mayor (and potential Ehrlich rival) Martin O'Malley was unfaithful to his wife. (Steffen's comments, I should point out, were posted on the aptly named Free Republic, which is not a blog, per se, but a message board.)
I spoke to Franke-Ruta after the session and her concerns are well intentioned. But politicians ought to have no more protections from salacious blog posts than they do from sandwich boards. In the end, the government should no more do anything about them than John Adams should have imposed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798.
Blogs don't libel people. People libel people.
Patrick Hynes is a Republican consultant and a freelance writer. He is the proprietor of the site AnkleBitingPundits.com.
I've seen it used that way. "Exercise your rights," for example.
(sigh)...Once again, Left = more government, right = less government. Fascism (derived from the latin word for 'group') is a construct of Benito Mussolini in 1919 in Italy to describe his new form of "centralized government", a LEFTIST ideal. So on the scale we see as we take more and more steps to the left we go from centrist to moderate liberal to liberal to FASCIST to socialist to Marxist to full on Commie.
Fascist = leftwinger. I really need to put this on a CD and just mail it out.
"Garance Franke-Ruta from the American Prospect suggested out loud that the blogging industry impose "community norms" to prevent libelous postings, like the ones recently revealed to be the handwork of Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich staffer Joseph Steffen..."
We already have them, it's called slander or libel.
And what, no mention of "Smirking Chimp"?
If I post on this thread, does that make me a blogger? (snicker)
Yup. :-)
You're right. Except for the Bunny-with-the-pancake-on-its-head vanities that crop up, FReepers do an excellent job of answering the five Ws when it comes to after-action reports and on-the-scene stuff. Of course, we have the luxury of follow-up questions so that the info remains as accurate as possible.
But in your example, "Exercise" is a verb, not an adjective.
It's not 'called' a forum. It IS a forum (or BBS). It is NOT A BLOG. A blog is an online web log, i.e., a DIARY of sorts, with regular posts from its owner. FR is not and never has been, to my knowledge, anything like that.
I'm very mannerly and I curtsy, and I don't have the hairy, nasty body of a man or thick, fumbling sausage-like fingers that routinely break the handles off of coffee cups at all. No no. I'm actually a sweet little girl in a paisley dress who says "Please" and "Thank You" and who's mother just ADORES me.
Who's your daddy, Lazmataz? Who's your poppa?
You gotta enjoy it when you can legitimately work that into a thread...LOL.
Not a common usage, but it is a legit one. See dictionary.com.
5 a. To absorb the attentions of, especially by worry or anxiety.
5 b. To stir to anger or alarm; upset: an injustice that exercised the whole community.
Like that guy "Publius" writing all those Federalist Papers ...
Didn't some guy named Ben Franklin, a few years back, write under many different pseudonyms? IIRC, he 'blogged' in his own newspaper in the colonies AND during his many years in England.
Franklin wrote as young women, old women, divorcees and so forth. He wrote editorial letters, at first to support the continued relationship between the states and King G...but as we know, he later supported the seperation in spite of the anguish it caused him and what was left of his family.
So you see, "blogging" has a LONG and established history of WE THE PEOPLE taking matters into our own hands...let's continue that fine tradition.
Smart E. Pantz, an old, one legged, blind man with no hair...
5 a. To absorb the attentions of, especially by worry or anxiety.
5 b. To stir to anger or alarm; upset: an injustice that exercised the whole community.
But the word is used as a verb in those examples, not an adjective. In the sentence I quoted, "exercised" is used as an adjective, like "angry", "perturbed" or "frightened". I don't find an adjective form of "exercised" at Dictionary.com.
Are you dating?
**************
You're sweet?
:)
Yep, that's the right word. Great post. Thanks.
I should point out, were posted on the aptly named Free Republic...
Well, you have to remember that there's new theories of how to write a story. The inverted pyrmaid is still the best, IMHO.
I totally disagree with you.
No one does what you're talking about better than the New York Times. Their lede's are poetry, words sing, their kickers knock you down -- the writing is beauty beyond anything as pedestrian as "who, what, when, where". And yet, numbers are going down, trust is falling, the feeling of it being "my paper" like the feeling of it being "my team" dies.
You've bought into the sizzle being the steak, and so has the MSM. No, I don't want "great writing here" I want insight on a human scale. I want good people grappling with tough issues to make our lives and our communities better. I want both sides. I want information that's useful, not writer's groupthink. I want the engineer's appraisal of the space program, not the "English majors'" appraisal of the engineer's appraisal of the space program. ( Okrent )
What if all news had to be conveyed as cartoons? That selection process would leave out a fair number. So, how about some reporters being made into "write" people. They write the comments and insights of those who don't write. Broaden the base... make it really representative of the true diversity of ideas out there.
FreeRepublic is like that. Ideas are presented in all their hopeless ramblings and diversity. Real diversity, not the diversity of pigmentation. Not the "diversity" of what we do with what sex organ to some random orifice. They're presented with the diversity of ideas and experience from our many walks of life.
My chief and only desire was to express the loss of a Pope that meant the world to me. If you have any sense of respect, then I wish you would realise that 1.1 Billion of us are in a state of mourning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.