Free Culture I

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.

Plagiarism Experience Reflection

For me the plagiarism experience came in three distinct emotional stages: first excitement and enthusiasm, then a certain bitterness, and finally a strange acceptance and empathy for the plagiarist.

When we began discussing the project I was really eager to do it. I thought it would be fun and I had quite a few ideas floating around. My goal was to “rip-off” an incredible number of sources and blend them into one seamless paper. I wanted to borrow from everywhere--Calvin and Hobbes, books I’d read years ago with passages still standing out brilliantly in memory, the dilapidated ancient texts of Helen C. White, you name it. I wanted to make my plagiarism epic, on the scale of Ben-hur or the D-Day invasion.

Thus I had several things in consideration format-wise. My original thought was to write a short story. I really enjoy writing creative work and I thought this would be a golden opportunity to try out a scenario with pieces drawn from the work of favorite authors. However as I thought about it I realized there was almost nothing I would want to use word-for-word. I wanted to change things drastically from their original forms, and it became more like I was alluding or making a veiled reference than actually plagiarizing. It certainly wasn’t 25% plagiarized, so I thought about just dropping in the chunks verbatim. The problem with that was just how obvious it was. I realized that because the class would be searching for pieces plagiarized I had no chance of pulling it off (I think maybe with an instructor grading dozens of papers and not aware something has been plagiarized I could have slipped it past). Anyway I also didn’t feel right about doing it, which gradually led to the resentful stage. As Emily commented in class, plagiarizing creative writing is most offensive. Be it pride or something else, I hated the concept that what I was writing wasn’t mine. I decided to bag the entire effort, largely out of annoyance and frustration.

Of course these are midterm weeks and the assignment wasn’t a central focus for most of my time. Over the weekend I went to Iowa for a conference, and didn’t get back until Sunday night. It was then that I gained disturbing insight into the mind of a plagiarist. I’d like to say I purposely waited until 11:30 Sunday night to write the paper in order to feel as a plagiarist feels, however that would be a lie. In fact I was very busy studying for my other classes, all the while remembering the paper was due at 8:50 the next morning. Now for many of you that doesn’t sound all that bad, but I’m a guy that likes going to bed early. In other words, I think I sufficiently experienced the panic, stress, and desperation of a plagiarist. Luckily I had been thinking about the paper while I should have been doing other things all week, so I had some idea what to write. I still had to actually put it down on paper, though. I think this truly reflected the hastiness of plagiarized papers; I wasn’t particularly satisfied with the way it turned out, but there was no other option and no more time. Of course most plagiarists probably don’t lovingly dote over their stolen creations. When I was done I didn’t feel anything except relief that it was over. I didn’t give thought to anything except going to sleep. I imagine were this real the emotions would quickly kick back in after I had turned it in and realized it was now in the position to ruin my academic reputation. Luckily I don’t have to endure that particular fear. My only worry now is whether I’ll win the prize for best plagiarist among my group.

If I didn’t know better I’d say this whole thing was meant to teach a lesson. On the one hand I experienced how guilty i felt plagiarizing someone else’s work. I realized I like the sense of satisfaction I get from making it on my own steam, even if it isn’t regarded particularly highly by an instructor. I also discovered something very unexpected. While I would have originally called plagiarists a variety of negative things, I now have some insight into the humanity of academia’s “them.” They probably aren’t plotting creeps with some bizarre sense of right and wrong; they’re probably very real people with extenuating circumstances. At least that was my story. If this newfound wisdom has inspired me to ask one thing of an instructor, it would be to ask a few questions before offering a plagiarist up to the wrathful gods of higher-education academic honesty. Chances are that person isn’t as much a monster as we’d all like to believe. If we pause for a moment, we might become uncomfortably understanding of someone we've been taught to despise. Chances are, if we look deep enough, there’s a little plagiarist in all of us.