"What democracy requires," Lasch wrote in "The Lost Art of Argument," "is vigorous public debate, not information. Of course, it needs information too, but the kind of information it needs can only be generated by debate. We do not know what we need until we ask the right questions, and we can identify the right questions only by subjecting our own ideas about the world to the test of public controversy."
There was something appealing about this argument -- one that no blogger would reject -- when Lasch advanced it almost two decades ago. But now we have the opportunity to witness it in practice, thanks to the blogosphere, and the results are less than satisfying. One gets the uneasy sense that the blogosphere is a potpourri of opinion and little more. The opinions are occasionally informed, often tiresomely cranky and never in doubt. Skepticism, restraint, a willingness to suspect judgment and to put oneself in the background -- these would not seem to be a blogger's trademarks.
But they are, more often than not, trademarks of the kind of journalism that makes a difference. And if there is anything bloggers want more than an audience, it's knowing they are making a difference in politics. They are, to give them their due, changing what is euphemistically called the national "conversation." But what is the nature of that change? Does it deepen our understanding? Does it broaden our perspective?
Either Skube has a deep misinterpretation of what blogging is about or I do. I blog precisely to participate in the debate that Lasch advocated (well that and to share Ewa Sonnet videos) not to break news stories. I don't have the time or inclination to do the latter, although if I was getting paid to do so I may.
Why is this wrong?
And why is it wrong for journalists to be held to the standards that they claim for themselves? Objectivity and factually based reporting. Thats seems to be what most bloggers who criticize the more traditional media seem to be asking for.
I can't speak for all bloggers, just myself, but the thing that perturbs me about traditional media sources is the creeping editorilaization of the news. All I want is objective fact. I am capable of forming my own opinion or of reading the editorial page to find what others think.
On that topic, again I can't speak for all bloggers, but in my opinion I am much more fair minded than I find most writers for major papers to be. In my RSS reader I have both blog and news feeds, my blog feeds mostly echo my opinions but my news feeds are , I think, very diverse. I have Al-Jazeera, the BBC, papers from Africa, India nd Pakistan, both Seattle papers, the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, LA Times, and a few others. I strive to make an informed opinion not a knee-jerk reaction. If I am going to throw opinions out for everyone to read I at least want a basis to argue from. If that qualifies me for suckitude so be it.
Blogs, Media
No comments:
Post a Comment