The great and the terrible

The great thing about the internet is that anyone can become part of the conversation.

The terrible thing about the internet is that anyone can become part of the conversation.

Discuss.

Comments

[trainer]

The advantages of having a voice far far outweigh the disadvantages of havin' to listen to some of those voices.

There was no outlet for all voices back in the 60s and 70s, and look where that got us...the only voice was the media.

As an official old fart, I am thrilled with the Internet...I know now that there are others out there and I'm not alone.

I am especially pleased and proud of the young voices who sound like I did back in a time when it wasn't fashionable.

Bottom line. All voices good. (McCain/Feingold bad).

[Rivrdog]

Trainer, there WAS an outlet for the sort of screed that goes on the 'Net today - it was the student newspapers of the various campuses.

The rag in Berkely comes to mind.

All that freedom of the press didn't kill us then, and it won't now, so McCain-Feingold looks to be overkill.

What isn't funny is the total subversion of the MSM as a blunt political instrument of propaganda for the Left.

Our main job as conservatives should be to get the word out that there is better, more accurate reportage on the 'Net.

That should be Job One.

[Lornkanaga]

Freedom of speech is good. However, no one is obligated to watch, read, or listen to the opinions of others.

Everyone gets a say, but it's up to the individual to determine what s/he listens to, watches, and reads.

Free speech is good. Freedom to choose is even better.

[Gullyborg]

wow, we are having an intelligent conversation with differing points of view instead of flames and insults!

this might be a first around here...

[BobG]

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you Rivrdog; the editors of the campus newspapers back then had their own agenda, so people still didn't have quite the freedom of speech that we have now. The internet gives the equivalent of a soapbox and a microphone to anyone who wants one, without worrying about editors.

[gullybabe]

The anonymity of the internet reduces most of the “information” to the category of hearsay. If there is no accountability for the opinions you proffer and no means of verifying who you are, what your personal agenda is or if your information is solid or the work of your own fantasy - how can I take anything on the internet seriously? Which is not to say that traditional information sources are agenda free.

One person can post with endless names and identities the same falsity across the internet thereby making it true to the majority of users. The facts are still wrong, put the popular opinion will render the facts obsolete and the lie true. Yellow journalism at the speed of type.

[Max]

Sorry, Babe - I disagree. In the first place, most people aren't that imaginative, nor that active.

The few that are, I think, are fairly quickly weeded out. Credibility is everything, and if you don't have your facts together, someone will quickly jump in.

The recent Reuters photographic fiasco provides a perfect example. It was Internet bloggers who noticed that photos were being doctored, and it was their discussion that ultimately resulted in Reuters firing the photog and pulling some 900 photos from their archives.

Nope. It ain't yellow. It's true journalism at the speed of type.

[gullybabe]

Possibly, Max, if the author is reliable - but how are we to know when everyone can be anyone? It certainly is true that the internet has provided truths sadly lacking in the media. But it also is guilty of resurrecting and perpetuating outrageous falsehoods. When the majority of users for anything lack the ability to discern truth from fiction (reality TV anyone) they are susceptible to any random garbage a persuasive snake-oil salesman can provide.

We’ve all have seen a lot of wrong info presented as absolute fact because the author’s world view required an alteration. The traditional media is certainly the grandfather of precedent here, but the internet has bred a whole new generation of people competing to present their own special version of crazy and have it taken as fact.

The average person has the IQ of 100. They have very little defense agianst clever liars.

[Gullyborg]

Just remember, there are still plenty of people who really believe that if they forward that e-mail to 7 people, Bill Gates and Walt Disney Junior will give them a thousand dollars -- which will come in handy, as the exiled minister of Nigeria needs a thousand dollars now in order to set up that $43 million wire transfer into my account.

The internet is a wonderful, amazing thing. Problem is, like any other technology, it can be used for evil as easily as for good. Unlike previous forms of communication, the internet allows you to easily and inexpensively get your information in front of millions of people almost instantly -- so the good, and the bad, can have a lot more impact.

[Max]

Gully and Babe -

That's why we have resources such as Snopes. Unlike traditional media, the Internets (thank God for AlGore) provide us with the means to check content. And that's why bloggers were able to effect some changes in the mainstream (Reuters) media.

[Gullyborg]

True.

But then the problem is that you have to rely on the individual to put forth the effort to verify -- which is no different from asking an individual to verify when dealing with tv, or books, or cave paintings. It's the same situation we've always had, only now more people are hooked up and get information more quickly.

[Spank That donkey]

"I have never been wrong about something I wasn't sure of...."

(Ex City of Richmond, VA City Councilman circa 1994, who admitted to being on heroin the entire 20 years he was on Council, but he was a Marine Vietnam Veteran)

[DirtCrashr]

I like the quality of many voices in the Blogosphere, and I try to triangulate facts instead of going bi-polar with what I choose to read -- especially as opposed to the blunt, braying, leftist cudgel of the MSM - the constant drone of bread and circus reporting. The Media seldom retracts their faults or acknowledges error, except buried in a back corner. Reuters has been outed, yet their bias persists. In today's report about a Dutch Airliner that was turned back and the arrest of twelve passengers, Reuters references without naming Theo Van Gogh who was murdered only as, "a filmmaker critical of Islam" - why the backhanded lack of relevant context? His great grand-uncle was one of the most famous painters in the entire World, and he himself won the Dutch equivalent of an Oscar for his work. They belittle him by dis-acknowledgment.
In my conversion as a conservative departing the church of Liberalism, the voices that talk back against conventional Leftist "wisdom" are important - and I never knew there were so many gun-bloggers!

[Not George Allen]

It’s true that there are reliable sources on the internet to go to in order to verify or disprove assertions that bloggers and blog commenters make. The question is how many people avail themselves of these resources.

A previous poster mentioned the snopes site, which certainly very useful, though, ironically, the same poster alluded to the article of faith among many on the right that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. If you look it up on snopes, they show that Gore never made such a claim. He did claim to have taken a lead role in pushing the legislation that led to the creation of the internet, a claim that is true.

A couple of previous posters have decried the role of editors. I think many bloggers would benefit from having an editor—for example, an editor might put the brakes on ad hominem attacks, which seem to be all too prevalent on blogs across the political spectrum.

Editors could also help reduce flame wars. It’s been my experience that many flame wars start when one person posts something that is true that another person finds uncomfortable. Because the second person can’t attack the truth of the first post, the second person instead attacks the poster.

As far as the so-called liberal bias of the mainstream media, people forget that the media loved Ronald Reagan, which is why he was called the Teflon President—even though he had one of the most scandal-ridden administrations in history (29 officials convicted of behavior while in office), it mostly didn’t stick to him.

It’s true that the press didn’t much like Richard Nixon, which I think is the source of the myth of liberal media bias. I think Nixon didn’t like the press much himself.

Remember, such right-wing commentators and politicians as Lars Larson, Mary Starrett, Bill O’Reilly, Pat Buchanan, William Safire, David Brooks, and George Will have all had jobs in the mainstream media.

[Judicator]

I'll keep it brief. Personally, I love the freedom of the Internet. I don't think that life would be very fun without it. And there are some crazy, messed-up people out there who take advantadge of that same freedom.

Hmmmm, sounds very similar to out 2nd Amendment liberties. I won't tell someone else they can't own a gun just because I don't like them. I also won't tell someone else that they cannot be connected to the Internet because they're a jerk with a keyboard.

Just take the good with the bad, like all other things.

[DirtCrashr]

I don't care how many other people avail themselves of such resources just as I don't care how many bloggers are cat-bloggers, that's not the point - nor is flame wars, it takes two to tango or to verify or disprove - I do and I don't need an editor scrutinizing my posts. I don't get into flame wars because I'm not particularly interested in what some people think of as "debate" - as though I could persuade them to see a different light.
The liberal Media bias is more evident than just a simple assertion of Regan's "Teflon" presidency, it's visibly active in the NYT and my local paper every day. I lived as an adult liberal through the Regan era and remember quite clearly how much he was NOT loved by the press, who bolstered my liberal ideas and blinkered my perspective. Today the MSM is still going-on with talking points about the "disastrous Administration response to Katrina," when all the subsequent evidence clearly points elsewhere, from Nagin outwards to layers and layers of incompetencies including the Press' own hysterical response false stories for which they have never really apologized or retracted - much like the fake Gaza/Lebanon-bombing stories they don't retract - things that have nothing to do with the President, yet the Press continues to trumpet that linkage.
It's like that hypocrite Gunter Grass banging on his Tin Drum.

[Independent Thinker]

well well well, looks like one of our favorite previously banned trolls is back. you can tell so easily, because he references "ad hominem attacks" in the same comment as Reagan's "29 officials indicted." gee... we NEVER heard THAT before...

[Pointing Out The Obvious]

Independent Thinker, great post! Personal attacks are just so much better than well-reasoned arguments.

I mean, it's tough when you're trying to argue with someone who actually knows what he's talking about. Can you deny NGA's point that many far-right commentators have or had MSM jobs?

You may also need to improve your reading comprehension--NGA stated the fact that 29 Reagan officials were CONVICTED, not indicted.

DirtCrashr, you have a point about the photos that have been altered. But how about the Bush administration planting fake stories? Is that not just as bad?

[Gullyborg]

yes, many right wing media people had media jobs. um... isn't that kind of the definition of being in the media, you know, that you are "in the media"?

but then, how many more liberals have there been in the media over the years? it's easy to throw out a few names like O'Reilly and make people think "oh yeah, the media is full of right wingers." But that's one man. And he's on cable. How about:

Dan Rather
Tom Brokaw
Peter Jennings
Walter Cronkite
Katie Couric
Molly Ivins
Maureen Dowd
Chris Matthews
George Stephanopolous
Mike Wallace

...

Yes, there were 29 people associated with Reagan who were convicted of things. Big deal. Ever heard of the Clinton "death list"?

How many people associated with Clinton might have been convicted if not for pardons?

How many churches full of women and children did Reagan's goon squad torch in Texas?

How many 6 year old children were seized at gun point and sent to live under a communist dictatorship under Reagan's watch?

Just trying to be fair here...

[Pointing Out The Obvious]

Gully,

You're comparing a fact, the 29 Reagan officials convicted of crimes committed while in office, with speculation, that Bill Clinton was somehow involved in those people's deaths.

If we're going to play that game, how about the Bush death list? Mel Carnahan, Paul Wellstone, Ken Lay, and more:

http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bushdeathlist.htm

Yes, a few people associated with Clinton, including at least one Administration official, likely would have been convicted if not pardoned. It's also true that the Reagan total likely would have been higher if not for pardons by George H.W. Bush (Caspar Weinberger, for example).

O'Reilly is on cable now, but he had jobs with various broadcast stations, including KATU in Portland (which we also got here on the coast).

Besides, if you believe in the free market, maybe the free market favors liberal broadcasters. Yes, I know it's easy to whine about results you don't like, but if you truly believe in the free market, you need to be able to accept when you don't like the results.

It's funny that the ATF and the FBI are the President's "goon squad" under a Democratic President, but not under a Republican. Ever hear of Ruby Ridge? Wounded Knee?

The situation in Waco could have been handled better, but it's also clear that Koresh was psychotic (not to mention a pedophile). Also, the FBI agents who recommended the siege pre-dated the Clinton administration.

Did Bill Clinton ignore a memo stating "bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."?