You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January, 2006.
The Washington Post’s blog, Post.Blog, has (temporarily?) shut down its comments feature after being hit with a poo-storm of angry replies to an assertion that Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff also gave money to a few Democrats. Some of the incoming comments were apparently of questionable quality. The folks over at MediaShift have more detailed coverage.
On Thursday, Jan. 26, Post.Blog backed up the statements about Abramoff made by Deborah Howell. It has also taken steps to restore the commenting process in some small amount: a few of the yoinked comments have been returned to the original posting, and readers are now able to e-mail their comments to editors for publication.
Should censorship exist in the blogosphere? On the one hand, censorship of comments (or prohibiting any comments) runs counter to the whole purpose of blogging as a new form of citizen journalism: the two-way street, the free exchange of ideas. Interactivity.
On the other hand, should not the Washington Post be able to edit its own website? Where you fall on this issue is indicitave of how you probably view the blogosphere in general, meaning, those who are inclined to mistrust unverified, unprofessional news writing and commentary will probably align on the pro-censorship side. This debate harkens back to the fundamental worry many originally had with blogging, realizing that unverified commentary being given the same weight as news from major (or minor) professional sources is dangerous and could lead to rampant misinformation.
My journalistic training sometimes pulls me into the anti-blog camp, which is an unfair polarization of the two pursuits. I am slowly coming around to the idea that blogs and traditional mass media do not have to be enemies; as long as blog content is not one’s only news source, blogs can act as supports, providing the open forum for ideas and analysis that the intelligent public craves.
That is–IF they have comments.
I find it quite irritating that the public blames every social ill on “the media” (in itself an ill-defined term), from anorexia to violence to stupidity (like those people on the street who can’t tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution). It’s convenient to be able to blame your own problems on someone you’ve never met, hmm? I think it’s high time for a little personal responsibility.
Do the media have influence on the public? Of course. Does the public have influence on the media? Does the Pope wear a funny hat? The biggest problem with today’s news and entertainment media is, if anything, its knee-jerk responsiveness to the public’s whim, not the other way around. Oh sure, people’s perspectives and ideas are often steered by what they are fed from the tube, but they’re only watching a reflection of what they’ve said they want to see. Not to be trite, but money talks, and we see it talking on millions of screens and pages every day. The cult of ratings seems to require frequent sacrifices, usually of things like decency and intelligence. If the public asks for crap, well then, that’s what it’s going to get.
This does not let the media off the hook. The single-minded purveyors of the crap should get consciences. There is absolutely no excuse for “Laguna Beach,” no matter how many new words (i.e. “dunzo”) it might add to our dictionary.
“Blog” is a weird word, as Stephen Colbert points out in his interview with blogger Andrew Sullivan.
