Maybe not such a bad weekend after all.
Those "42" groups wanting to remove a judge from the bench because of Morgentaler's OOC? It was bloggers (mostly JJ and Buckets) who got to the bottom of that fallacy. NOT the oh-so-intrepid journalists, who just regurgitated whatever "Dr" Charles McVety sent to them.
Speaking of McVety, it was also bloggers who took the time and care to figure out the truth about his (non)status as a Docter. In your face, journamalists!
Well said, Prole--I don't know how I missed that one. JJ and Buckets rule.
You know, these three "establishment" pundits are among the few who run blogs and participate in them, even minimally. I don't see what value there is in sniping at them from this corner, when you can go over and confront them directly.
Just a quick thought. I'll finish reading your post and come back.
Does Scott Reid have a blog? I know the others do over at Macleans, and I'll do an update on that shortly. Many thanks.
For decades, when I had a dead-tree sub to the Grope and Flail, I would begin every morning with the letters to the editor. Easily half of each day's contributions were at least as good or better than anything I was going to read in the rest of the paper (with the exception of John Doyle or one of the serious investigators). They were also mostly much better than the editorials.
So smart-mouth stuff like that from Reid and Potter just makes me laugh. They remind me of why I don't have dead-tree subs any more. All the civilized people who used to write letters to the editor are blogging now, and if the boys can't find 'em, it's because they haven't figured out where to look yet.
I believe that nature and society have an uncanny way of correcting an anomaly or wrongs. As we all know, the media nowadays are unlike the media of the past. The press does not ask the tough question and now easily resort to pandering to organization and leader like Bush and Harper. But our democracy is safe because of the rising popularity of blogs and youtube. But the media like to dismiss the people as a bunch of idiots who does not know what is best for their country as they do. You mean the same people who get to vote and choose their government? Such elitist mentality belongs to pre civil war U.S.A.
When have I *ever* suggested that there is anything slummy about blogs?
Honestly, y'all. You're not a freaking monolith. There are bloggers who are better at investigative journalism in their spare time than actual journalists who are paid to do so, and there are those with a sorry record of posting unfounded - and eventually disproven - allegations. There are excellent, must-read blogs that have a permanent home in my Google Reader, and there are those that I only read when I absolutely have to do so. Much like the dreaded mainstream media, it's impossible to generalize -- and I don't think I did.
As for the liability issue, I didn't mean to suggest that there is no similar apprehension on the part of bloggers, but in most cases, it is still, ultimately, their personal judgment that decides whether or not to post something, whereas journalists still have to get the go-ahead from the powers that be before going ahead with a story that could result in their employer being sued.
Goes back to one simple question: what evidence do you have to substantiate the assertion you're making? If you don't have any and you're not willing to admit it's just a belief or a guess or something even less, then screw you.
What undeniable is that it's clear now that for decades, establishment pundits probably never had much evidence of any kind when they tortured us with their blather. The only thing I thought I'd see the blogosphere do is put an end to paid punditry. But the only change I'm seeing is that investigative reporting is being cut back and the establishment media is moving almost exclusively to user-generated content. For it was "reality teevee;" now it's "reality nooz," where what determines public interest is simply what everyone's nattering on about.
*urg*
Kady:
You were, in fact, head and shoulders above your two snarky compatriots today. But the blogs that specialize in unfounded rumour and accusation are not the ones ahead of the curve, nor the ones that get picked up by the mainstream media.
"[J]ournalists still have to get the go-ahead from the powers that be" for all sorts of reasons these days, and it's not just because of defamation legislation, as you well know. The rule of Izzy Asper was notorious for spiking and re-writing stories, and for bullying and firing those who disagreed with the Asper view of the world.
The wise and benign "powers that be" are one thing bloggers don't have to worry about. As for the issue of defamation, I'd say most of us have the knowledge and the good professional instincts, as well as some inherent gut-feel, to stay well out of trouble.
Ti-Guy:
Just for clarification, what assertion are you talking about?
This may be hopelessly naive -- and wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of such a thing -- but I really believe that the online universe is big enough for all of us. I love blogs - reading them, and writing my own for macleans.ca - but I also love curling up with the Globe and Mail on a lazy Sunday afternoon, and tuning into Newsworld for the latest campaign dispatches from reporters on tour, and hearing what the At Issue panel has to say about the week's events. It's all good. (Or, depending on your perspective, all bad.) As I tried to explain during the closing minutes of the Agenda a few weeks back, neither of us has to be destroyed for the other to survive.
m'thinks ms kady is among the best at combining the two worlds and actually does appreciate what we pixel stained wretches can achieve. that sais (fanboy moment over) for reasons entirely unknown to me, us barbarians over at cc's place keep getting picked up by the new york times aggregator. weird.
Just for clarification, what assertion are you talking about?
I wasn't actually addressing anything specific; it was just a reaction with regard to this post, which is such a sweeping condemnation of establishment journalism and excessively complimentary with regard to "bloggerdom" that I just seized on the one thing I always harp about and the one thing that should be of paramount importance to the rest of us: if someone is proposing to expand one's understanding of reality, it's important to focus on just what evidence is being presented.
These are not conversations in any real sense of the term; people write mini-dissertations with each post or comment and it's entirely too easy to lose focus; and that is what is plaguing public discourse and threatening democracy more than anything else, as people retreat into smaller and smaller groupuscules of common interest and increasingly fractured and useless "online activism."
-s, +d = said, d'oh
neither of us has to be destroyed for the other to survive.
Which was the point of my post--let's enjoy the symbiosis.
Ti-Guy:
Of course I was being sweeping--no more so than Potter and Reid, though. But it is certainly the case that, with media concentration, those ol' "powers that be" that kady mentions are becoming a pretty fine-mesh filter. If you want proof, just look at the narrow range of opinion in the US mainstream media.
no more so than Potter and Reid, though.
Yeah, but their assertions weren't that long or complex. I actually agree with Potter (and I'm not much of a fan of his) about the idiocracy and what he means by "democratization" in the worst sense of the term; the kind of concerted group activity that results in the public interest being determined solely by what people are nattering on about. Like CBC highlighting stories that attract the most commentary. When you look at the nature of the commentary (3000 wingnuts and/or moonbats repeating the same thing over and over again), you have to appreciate just how demoralising that can be.
I never take anything Scott Reid says seriously.
We've also been picked up by the Wall Street Journal -- double weird ; -)
Yikes. I'm in trouble. I'm not a virgin (I have four kids). And my basement is uninhabitable (too many research files from the two-dozen-plus books I've written). I do, however, have a laptop. Good thing, too. It allows me to blog-on-the-run for two mainstream Canadian media outlets who recognize that many readers like a nice mix of old media and new media (as I do). I also love to add magazines, zines, podcasts, video podcasts, live radio, townhall discussions, and personal research/interviews to my understanding of what's happening in my town and my world. The more channels I tune into, the better informed I am. I think it's best to think "and" not "or" when it comes to media choices. (I can quickly discard the stuff that's not for me, whether it's mainstream media or new media, right?)
Blogging is a parasitic deal in many ways. We need the media to report on things so that we can keep informed. That being said, bloggers are also extremely important to keep an eye out and call BS on the traditional corporate controlled media.
I have always said, (YUP I can source that) that there are some journalists doing the job well. (Kady and Antonia always ahead of the pack)
But that column by that Scott person, seems so noble lie-ish, I hear Strauss playing in the background.
"The people -- the great idiocratic mass of mouth-breathers out there frantically swiping the drool off their keyboards as they Google around for "dirt"
That entire statement oozes contempt for those that in the end pay his friggin salary, the consumers.
Blogs are written by people who actually give two hoots about what is going on. Participatory democracy. Ya, that scares the bejeesus out of the powers that be and their mouthpieces.
Good. BOOGA BOOGA.
I wanted to add in a separate comment that Kady does a fabulous job of pushing the envelope at Maclean's. She obviously knows exactly how far she can go when she's posting live from the fascinating government proceeding du jour -- when someone's going to accuse her or her employer of misappropriating their personality and when they're going to simply whine in private about something she posted.
And because she doesn't water down her comments, she's always entertaining to read. She tells it like it is to the gutsy extreme.
Opps. Potter person.
My bad. Instant correction. Ain't blogging awesome?
Participatory democracy.
Oh don't be naive. The people who are making the decisions (such as the ones bailing out the millionaires as we speak) are not listening and haven't been for a long time.
participatory democracy.
Yes, perhaps they stopped listening because of people like yourself ti-guy?
Nattering gnat in the background with little to say or to do that is constructive or has any usefulness?
But.. Oh. right. Seems that they are starting to listen now. Time to ratchet it up a few notches by my reckoning.
What would you suggest? Lying down and getting run over quietly?
I'll leave that to you.
: )
And do have a nice day.
Yeesh. One mild disagreement and I get the full treatment
I'm just remarking that I've been observing this marvelous experience in what you're calling participatory democracy for the last eight years and it has not stopped one single outrage from happening.
Don't be so brittle. And have a nice day too. ; )
and that is what is plaguing public discourse and threatening democracy more than anything else, as people retreat into smaller and smaller groupuscules of common interest and increasingly fractured and useless "online activism."
Wow, mark this day on the calender. Ti-Guy decides to actually make an argument rather than just blow raspberries. Maybe decades from now aging bloggers will reminisce, saying "I remember exactly what I was doing when I heard the news that Ti-Guy made a serious..."
So, let me do him the honour of a serious reply. When was this golden age of democracy of which you hint when Canadians from sea to sea transcended their particular communities and perspectives and joined together to encompass a common national, nay global, perspective, working as one to ensure they had the right information and a solid evidentiary foundation for their political views and votes? You are wrong, Ti-guy, democracy is not threatened by a general lack of knowledge or expertise or even by limited, self-focused perspectives. It is threatened when a particular class or group becomes so sure of its superior ability to understand the challenges and needs of the country that it can no longer bear the thought that its votes count the same as those of the masses it disdains as ignorant or irrational or selfish or lazy or whatever. It used to be that was widely felt by propertied classes, and it certainly is a feature of both left and right wing dictatorships.
If there is any incipient threat to democracy today (which I doubt by the way--people have been nagging poor old democracy for generations that it is threatened, yet it always seems to just keep on truckin'), it can be seen in politically active scientism, modern anti-religious bigotry, and doctrinaire libertarian and leftist assertions that the mass of the voting public is too superstitious, uninformed, ignorant or distracted to understand the complexities or see through the "lies" they are being told, and that therefore their right to an equal say in choosing government becomes a matter of respectable questionning rather than something taken for granted. As you talk like this frequently, I assume you are intrigued by the notion of rule by an academy chock full of scholars swimming in "evidence". I usually have no idea what you mean by evidence because you rarely say, but I think we all appreciate you are pretty convinced you have a lock on it.
Modern Western democracy (universal, not the ancient Greek version) is not a scientifically-proven, superior objective route to wise policy or good decisions, and it doesn't rest on old-fashioned whig "the people are always right" shibboleths. It is, in the end, a value that originiated partly in a religious belief that we are all of equal worth as children of God, and partly from hard-nosed, Churchillian wisdom born of terror and blood that the alternatives are all so much worse.
A role for bloggers is to keep the major media honest on the facts, which they far too often get wrong. As an example, a letter sent to the Washington Post that was not printed:
'Your story, "Top Military Officer Urges Major Change in Afghanistan Strategy" (Sept. 11), reports that Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Michael Mullen referred to "...the new influx of U.S. forces into Afghanistan that Bush announced Tuesday -- an Army brigade and Marine battalion with a total of about 4,500 troops..." in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.
That figure of 4,500 does not tell the whole story. The Marine battalion of some 1,000 personnel is actually replacing another Marine battalion that will be leaving Afghanistan (it's stationed in the western part of the country). This replacement represents no net increase in troop strength. In fact the only increase will be the Army brigade of around 3,500 soldiers arriving early next year.
But meanwhile the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit--2,300 marines--that is now operating in southern Afghanistan is withdrawing at the end of November and is not being replaced.
Thus for roughly two months U.S. troop strength will in reality decrease by those 2,300; it will eventually only rise some 1,200 (3,500 soldiers minus 2,300 marines)--not 4,500. Moreover not replacing the Marine unit in southern Afghanistan will leave quite a military hole in a very dangerous and contested region.
Adm. Mullen has good reason to be worried about how things will go in Afghanistan over the next several months.
References:
http://www.latimes.com/news/
nati...0,6269807.story
"The 1,300 Marines -- a battalion and helicopter unit -- would be the only combat troops to shift from Iraq this year. However, a senior military official said the Marines were likely to be sent to western Afghanistan in November, not the more turbulent east or south.
They would replace the 2nd Battalion of the 7th Marine Regiment, based in Twenty-Nine Palms. Officials are not planning to replace another Marine contingent [24th Marine Expeditionary Unit] in the country's most troubled area, Helmand province in southern Afghanistan.
In sum, the Marine shifts actually represent an overall decline of about 2,000 U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan. The arrival there in February of the brigade from the Army's 10th Mountain Division would then amount to a net increase in combat troops."
http://www.centcom.mil/en/news/a...neral-
says.html
"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered additional Marine forces to Afghanistan earlier this year over concerns about a possible spring offensive. The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, operating in the south, and 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, training Afghan security forces, are slated to return in late November after a one-month extension of their deployment..."'
I copied the author
Rest of comment:
'I copied the author of the story, Ann Tyson, on my message. She replied:
"Mark,
Thanks for your note and good point. I am aware that the description did not capture the impact of rotations and will try to explain that in future articles.
Best,
Ann"
Yet almost all stories for the last three weeks or so still refer to a US troop increase over the next few months in Afstan of around 3,500 (ignoring the unreplaced withdrawal of the Marine Expeditionary Unit).
Which is, simply, not true. The problem is that, for the most part, the major media--even more so in Canada than the US--are dead lazy. Or, more to the point in the Canadian case, dead ignorant of the subjects on which they report.
Now I know such military details may bore the hell out of most people; but they are essential to get right if, a) one is a decent journalist; and b) if the public is to have the necessary facts event to begin making informed judgments.
So far no mention of blogging. But all the above was documented at "The Torch"; one just tries working directly with the major media also.
And some of one's letters do get printed.
Mark
Ottawa
So, let me do him the honour of a serious reply.
Let me know when you do, Peter.
It really would be easier and more efficient if you just called me stupid. I don't read anything you write if it's longer than a paragraph.
Come on, Ti-Guy, you can do better than that.
I'm sure I can't.
You give it a shot.
"[W]hat are the three things you need to be a blogger? Your laptop. Your basement. And your virginity."
from Scott Reid.
Well that's Jason Cherniak in a nutshell but certainly not true of most political bloggers.
Commenting by HaloScan
