In Free Culture Lawrence Lessig addresses blogs (Chapter 2: "Mere Copyists"). He equates the blog with a purer form of Democracy because it is truly ruled by the people. What seems to interest Lessig in blogging is the potential to return to "deliberation." He appears to relish their unregulated power to voice any kind of view (as compared to the mainstream media). What I found interesting was the wistful tone of his description; when he talked about the Trent Lott affair and the tireless efforts of bloggers he sounded firmly in the blogging camp. However the blog is clearly not a news source for any responsible individual, something which he does not take time to address. The blog is unregulated and more importantly unverified--we have no knowledge of the credentials of the writer. While this blog could be quickly transformed into a bugle for satanic Nazi anarchism, whose to say I'm actually the person voicing those (misguided) views? Furthermore there is no fact checking or code of journalist responsibility which is so important in keeping the news from devolving into strictly matters of opinion and slant (granted it seems to be happening in some places--cough, Fox News v. MSNBC--but I believe blogs are nearly entirely this sort of opinion column writing). Lessig says the primary news providers are driven by the need to keep the publics fickle attention. This is, of course, absolutely true. However he then goes on to applaud blogs for their ability to "obsess," etc. Does it sound like a bad thing that a blog story should begin dictating the coverage of traditional news providers? The example of Lott's "exposed" prejudice would seem to clearly contest. However consider another example: the 2004 case of John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans. The story appeared early on the news, and then was quickly forgotten as almost every serious journalist understood it to be tripe. However our nation's valuable bloggers (and I cringe as I am now one of them) managed to carry on the search. In what unfolded, they managed to cause such an unwarranted stir they forced the issue back upon the media. This of course became a point of distraction from real and valuable campaign questions, and may have contributed to the re-election of George W. Bush.
Now I don't mean to say blogs should be forbidden from looking at politics and matters of importance greater than whether the blogger likes Frosted Flakes or Rice Krispies. All I'm trying to say is the incredibly vast majority of bloggers are "amateurs." I would like Lessig to prove that the number of trained, competent individuals with access to the means of explaining world events is not a negligible percentage of the blogging whole. How many conspiracy theorists pop up every single day? How many angry partisans simply say a known fact is wrong, allowing some other individual to be comforted in his own view and add weight to his narrow-minded conviction? I think the blog has awesome potential for sharing, thinking out loud, and reasoning through our own beliefs. It is when we trust blogs frequented only by like-minded individuals for our information that we get into trouble. The last thing the country needs is to believe it's us or them. What we need is truth that will challenge and shape where we stand by sole virtue of being truth.
PS
A quick note on Chapter 3. As I was reading the encounter between Jesse Jordan and the RIAA I couldn't help but feel a call to arms similar to the revolutionary. What impressed me was the completeness of the story: an innocent youth looking to do service for the people is grossly and unjustly assailed by the godless institution. The man is defeated by the simple thought of the beast--an illustration of oppression and corruption so clear I struggle to understand how even the very lawyers could miss it (unless they really are soulless). The RIAA juggernaut stole everything the man had, but in the end they only created an enemy. An activist was born from the crimes of the system. My hope is only that it doesn't take a direct encounter with injustice for us to wake up from our apathy and stand behind something other than ourselves. Like every hopeful idealist before me, I don't think the corporations are lobbies are bigger than the people. If we built them, so we should be able to unmake them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Lots of great points here, especially about how Lessig relishes the "deliberation" of the public in blogs, yet they are unverified. I loved your terminology- "clearly not a news source for any responsible individual". I do think you need to take into consideration, though, those blogs that are written by academics or people using verified fact. Sometimes in the "about me" section, or whatever it happens to be titled, you do get enough info to track down "truth". But in general, I would agree. Good point!
Okay...so I think I either was a) not really paying attention when I was reading or b) just really don't understand how these things work-I looked at blogs to try and help me understand the policies etc. and now I am even more confused, haha. I'm sure I will understand tomorrow
Good points presented,
It's important to view any source of information, be it Fox news or a blog, with an open mind. If there are partisan news programs and syndicated nationwide papers, then there sure can have the same conditions with free, easy to use blogs.
Just more sheep to the herd, heh.
Thanks for bringing up Lessig's discussion of blogs--we'll need to address this in class.
I think you're right, though, to be suspicious of the kind of grand claims Lessig flirts with here (for the record, though, I think he eventually backs away from the edge a bit). In the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was an unfortunately common argument, particularly among advocates on the left, that the Internet would at last revive the ailing American democracy. So many people coming together to debate issues and candidates--what could be more democratic than that?
Well, as you rightly point out, it all depends on what you're using the Internet for and, assuming you're participating in this space, who's reading your contributions. In short, there's nothing especially revolutionary about the Internet (the Matrix not withstanding)--at best, it might enable people to enage revolutionary ideas and coordinate revolutionary actions. At best.
Post a Comment