The Politics of Blogs

I gave up on this blog after a meager 7 postings out of shear loss of interest, but I am picking it up again out of shear boredom and, I suppose, a generation-x type need to express myself in this 21st century America. Thus, unless you have been living in seclusion for the past 5 years, blogging is the way to do it. I also play bass:

Let me be clear about one horrible and universal truth about young people with computers (myself included); we like to think we know a lot more about the world than we actually do, especially politics. I say again, I am one of these. I like politics, I follow politics, I like to discuss politics and learn about the political process, but I don't like politically driven blogs. It is far too easy to distort facts, inflate the truth, twist words, or perform any number of active verbs to abstracts (feel free to read that statement again, my high school English teacher would be pissed). This sort of propagandizing would be fine except that more and more each day, blogs are gaining credibility. Don't misunderstand me, there are many blogs with valuable information, but for every one "credible blog" there are probably thousands, if not millions of blogs that are total and complete rubbish (not unlike this one). Herein lies the rub; there is no discussion. Blogs have absolutely no give and take, back and forth, up and down, in and out, side to side relationship with their viewers. At best, if the viewer finds flaw in a blog, they could respond in a comment section, but let's be honest, as little credibility as any blogs have we all give them exponentially more credit than any viewer response. Do not take this as offensive, it is not unlike guests on political talk shows.



Imagine for me a hypothetical scenario. Let's say, for the sake of example, Rush Limbaugh, who has historically been critical of the theory of global warming (I say theory because it is a disputed topic) has a guest on his radio show who is an expert of global temperature and climate change. His guest, again for the sake of example, has a doctoral degree in physics, is currently a Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at an esteemed university, and has served as Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres; long story short, he is by any account an expert on the environment and global temperatures. Continuing our example, let's say the expert argues that global warming is a reality as opposed to Mr. Limbaugh who disagrees. Without saying a word, the regular audience of Limbaugh's will naturally side with him unless the expert somehow manages to sway them during his 5 minute segment, which, let's be honest, is a bit far-fetched. Never mind the fact that Limbaugh has been making his voice heard about global warming for years and never mind that for the most part his audience already leans to the right of center. The fact of the matter is, Rush Limbaugh, with absolutely no background in climate study what-so-ever, will already have the upper hand over someone who has done nothing but study climate change for decades simply because Mr. Limbaugh has been given universal credibility by his audience for years. The expert (who has remained nameless on purpose for this example), on the other hand, has probably not been heard of prior to his segment on the show, and will, for the most part, be forgotten along with his argument 10 minutes after his segment by the vast majority of the audience. (I want to go on record by saying this: in no way am I passing judgment on Mr. Limbaugh, his audience, or the science of global climate change, I am simply stating a common trend to illustrate the level of credibility given to a commentator by a loyal audience, all photo links are simply for the sake of humor) (I also want to go on record by saying this: I can't imagine how stupid you can be to actually have the audacity to believe that global warming isn't real. This is not a partisan issue, this was not invented by Al Gore and the political left, this is not misdirection for other problems in the world. The earth is heating up, ice caps are melting, the ozone layer is depleting, ocean and weather currents are shifting, living things are dying at a higher rate than ever before all of which is throwing the natural world into utter chaos. Wake up!!!)



A lot of people don't like Rush Limbaugh, but then again, a lot of people don't like Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Dan Abrams, or Chris Matthews. But like them or not, they are in reality much more balanced then blogs because no matter how much conviction they may have about any particular subject, they frequently invite people on their shows who disagree with them. Their beliefs may be asinine at times, but they are always forced to support them in real time with real people who disagree in front of hundreds of thousands of viewers, and although they frequently speak to a like-minded audience, this is still a very daunting task; to be told you are wrong about something, and have to support your beliefs live and in color (unless they are on the radio).



Blogs don't have to do that. Blogs make a point and disappear. If a viewer posts a critical comment about the blog's content, the blog's often nameless, faceless author responds on their own schedule if at all, and I would suspect most comments that are in disagreement are immediately deleted thus keeping the credibility in tact because after all "if no one disagrees, then it must be true."

Most of the time, a one sided blog is inconsequential in that everyone in the planet should be entitled to an opinion, and in the magical world of the www, everyone (at least in this country) has an outlet to voice their opinion. Bloggers can write about anything: Kanye West versus 50 Cent, The Chicago cubs rule, the Chicago cubs suck, gardening, technology, gardening technology, my dog, and the list goes on and on and on. This is all fine because most people can recognize opinions, and any and all outcomes of people agreeing or disagreeing are incidental. This is true for just about every topic on the planet, but not for politics (and very possibly others I am not thinking of).

Here is the difference: politics is a sport in which the fans decide the outcome. The problem, of course, is fans have to get information from somewhere, but where to turn in the world of the "biased mainstream media?" The amazing thing is that the same people who will tell you that all news programs on television and radio have an inherent bias will turn to blogs which have no chain of command about content in terms of news director or editors, no necessity to cite sources, and absolutely no obligation to be truthful. I am of course selling everyone short on this statement. There are certainly any number of political blogs with excellent journalistic integrity, but there are far more that have authors who passionately believe in one side or the other and have absolutely no qualms about smearing the opposition through any number of shameful tactics including lying, sins of omission, and inflation as a way to sway others to move to their side or stay at home on election day. These kinds of blogs are not unlike an entire universe of political attack ads without the pesky hassle of party approval.

We live in a very strange world. We live in a very strange time. We live a country, a country I love, a country with rights and freedoms that other nations could barely dream of. One of those rights is the freedom of speech, expression, and the press. This is my favorite portion of the bill of rights. No one will ever see or hear me opposing any sort of activity that constitutes free expression provided it does not physically harm others. Blogs certainly fall into this category, and I will always support anyone who has an opinion on this country's political system be it liberal, conservative, communist, socialist, green, independent, or any other affiliation, but opinion is different than fact, and it is extraordinarily disheartening to see credibility lent to blogs claiming factual content but are truly small scale smear campaigns based solely on opinions. So if you are a political blogger, I ask you for one thing: express your love or hatred with whomever of the country's leaders you choose, let everyone know how certain members of the government can, will, and are destroying our lives, let the world know what policies you feel will contribute to all of our ultimate demise, but be honest. Be truthful. Be relentless, but buck up your opinions with facts.

This blog is 100% opinion
By the by, I do indeed recognize the irony of blogging about how much I don't like certain blogs.