When the September 11 attack was described as a "historical fraud" by a section of bloggers and netizens, it showed how a section of self-styled political and "investigative" bloggers were using the cyber space to spread their alternative or anti-establishment views. These bloggers say they "turned themselves into the 9/11 Truth Movement"; their views would most probably have been rejected by editors of print and TV media and never been spread around, if not for the mode of blogging.
The blogosphere is considered the only independent medium by people who believe that traditional journalists are "sold out" for corruption or state and military agencies. These people want to establish the concept of global free press. This concept, like any other, comes with both pros and cons. While on the one hand it gives people a glimpse into incidents that are overlooked by the mainstream media, like the protests at the recent Republican convention in St Paul and the arrrest of Amy Goodman, on the other, efforts like the "9/11 Truth Movement" may not be acceptable to many.
Thus, on the flip side, tons of rumors and blatant lies get circulated via blogs. Journalistic standards do not officially apply to those who call themselves independent cyber journalists and it is easy for them to push their agenda online. Therefore, while blogging offers the opportunity to hold a global conversation without impediments like censure or editing — and in that sense, it is a wonderful mode of civic discourse — those participating Weblogging should use their judgement when absorbing blog material. Statements floated through blogs need to be checked for factual accuracy and ideas that are potentially harmful/dangerous to society need to be discarded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I can see your point with this statement; "Therefore, while blogging offers the opportunity to hold a global conversation without impediments like censure or editing — and in that sense, it is a wonderful mode of civic discourse — those participating Weblogging should use their judgement when absorbing blog material. Statements floated through blogs need to be checked for factual accuracy and ideas that are potentially harmful/dangerous to society need to be discarded."
Don't you think that the same holds true for traditional journalism? I realize that more opinion goes into blogging and no one has to really check their facts, but it seems that even though journalists have some type of ethical code, they do tend to leave the parts of the fact that would keep them from getting their point across. This could just be my cynical view of media.
I agree that there are many advantages and disadvantages to blogs and their contribution to civic and political discourse.
The phrase "lying by omission" just popped into my head. Anyone can slant information to his/her advantage, so it is up to the individual to use good jugement when reading any form of news or journalism.
Post a Comment