Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2008/02/13 - 12:23pm.
The Mrs. and I were talking the other day about how blogs don't really give you a good check on the pulse of the electorate or a sense of where most folks stand on issues, because people who participate are typically better educated, more informed, more engaged, and more passionate about their causes than the general population.
The recent Knox County elections might be an exception, but there was near universal consensus, partly because of the intense media coverage.
Anyway, Cathy at Domestic Psychology has some interesting commentary that reminded me of this.
Submitted by Average Guy on Wed, 2008/02/13 - 1:00pm.
Bloggers in jammies are as frightening as naked people dancing around a bonfire.
I must be twice as frightning, as I typically blog naked around a bonfire.
Average Americans just don’t care about what’s happening outside of their own lives enough to look beyond the surface. If someone at church says something about a candidate, it is accepted as fact.
Interesting commentary - but I disagree a bit. From this blog and others I visit, it seems more and more church goers are at least peeking in to see what the secular folks are a saying. Although I'm not sure any of the exchanges have taught me much, I still think any communication is typically better than none. If I gain nothing but the perspective of another, that's one more perspective I otherwise wouldn't have.
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/02/13 - 2:12pm.
There are also rather intelligent, well informed conservative (no, I don't mean Hornback) and libertarian bloggers out there, not just the liberal ones the author seems to be alluding to near the end of the statement.
The general sentiments, however, are probably right. You have to care more than most about the subject matter addressed in someone's blog to go digging through it, much less comment on it. Given the current state of evolution in the blogosphere, that's probably a good thing.
One of the dangers that really concerns me about the explosive growth of blogs and other alternative media is how easy it's becoming for people to pull all their news entirely from sources sympathetic to their own biases. Another concern is that the line between editorializing and straight news reporting is blurred, and pure spin is turned verbatim into "news" items by media sympathetic to its slant. The looser the editorial controls, the easier it is for this to happen, making blogs at least theoretically more vulnerable than the "MSM." The more sympathetic the audience to the disinformation, the less critically it is going to be considered and the more readily it is going to be digested as fact.
Taken in conjunction with one another, you have the danger of a highly polarized society armed with completely different sets of data - some it selectively factual, some of it pure disinformation - and therefore unable to truly discuss their differences or find ground for compromise, commonality, or even a spirit of community. For all those reasons, it's best that the early adopters of alternative media are the most educated on the subject matter, the most actively engaged in the process, and - as a result of the first two - the most likely to detect BS when they read it.
At its very best, alternative media make it a lot easier to understand someone else's point of view, to gain a perspective completely different from the one that comes naturally to you. You probably won't agree with that perspective, but understanding the reasoning, the rationale, the value judgments, and the vision that goes into it makes it a lot easier to conduct a legitimate discussion of a topic in place of a "did to, did not" playground level argument. Sometimes, I find my own position on a subject moderating or even switching sides altogether on a specific topic by really studying the points of new that run contrary to my own natural bias.
There are also rather intelligent, well informed conservative (no, I don't mean Hornback) and libertarian bloggers out there, not just the liberal ones the author seems to be alluding to near the end of the statement.
Not sure how you read any "liberal bias" into my remarks. Maybe you could elaborate?
I mostly agree with the rest of your comments, except I think most people, especially people who follow blogs, can tell the difference between editorializing and straight reporting. There's actually not a lot of straight reporting on blogs, but it's growing.
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/02/13 - 2:48pm.
Not sure how you read any "liberal bias" into my remarks. Maybe you could elaborate?
I didn't mean to imply I read liberal bias into your remarks. I read them them in the remarks from your link as follows:
Bloggers are just witches who are unfairly protected by the liberal establishment. The ten commandments need to be written into the Constitution and we will all be safe when the government can control protect us. Ignorance is righteous and knowledge is the apple being offered by a serpent
.
To clarify further, when you said:
I mostly agree with the rest of your comments, except I think most people, especially people who follow blogs, can tell the difference between editorializing and straight reporting. There's actually not a lot of straight reporting on blogs, but it's growing.
I actually tried to say much the same thing when I said:
For all those reasons, it's best that the early adopters of alternative media are the most educated on the subject matter, the most actively engaged in the process, and - as a result of the first two - the most likely to detect BS when they read it.
I don't know Bubba, sounded to me like you wuz bein' called a dirty f'ing hippie liberal scumbag, but then, I take offense easily. :-)
An aside: I saw the coolest car sticker, one of those white/black ovals with just letters (usually of where you went on vacation) and it had DFH (dirty f'ing hippie.) It cracked me up. Now I want one.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
it seems more and more church goers are at least peeking in to see what the secular folks are a saying.
I think "church goers" are pretty well informed about what the secular folks are saying, and have been saying. Whether they agree with it or not is a different issue.
Remember, us church goers work in the secular world and pay attention to the secular media.
Church goers do not actually live in the churches. Some visit frequently, some don't.
Of course many church goers may not feel welcome or comfortable on many blogs, or they don't like dealing with personal attacks that some people may make. Some blogs, when discussing important issues, tend to break down into tit-for-tat personal attacks the first time someone disagrees with someone else.
And then there are people like me who live by the old saying "I never learn anything by talking, only by listening." And that's what I tend to do. Most of the time. That probably applies to a large number of non-church goers as well.
Submitted by Average Guy on Wed, 2008/02/13 - 3:43pm.
I still think any communication is typically better than none. If I gain nothing but the perspective of another, that's one more perspective I otherwise wouldn't have.
...is a personal attack?
Of course many church goers may not feel welcome or comfortable on many blogs,
Sort of like a Naturalist having prayer espoused to them at government functions, football games, civic meetings, etc. etc. I guess the reverse is something Christians are going to have to get used to; Link...
I wasn't talking about you, or even this community. Sure, some people get a bit heated, I have myself, and spent time focusing on the commentator and not the comments.
Sort like a Naturalist having prayer espoused to them at government functions, football games, civic meetings, etc. etc. I guess the reverse is something Christians are going to have to get used to
And that wasn't what I was referring to either. Other blogs have a number of commentators who are simply trying to get people riled up by making highly personal and offensive attacks. Ive not commented at other blog sites that I've visited because I didn't want to lower myself to that kind of discourse.
I'm sure that a lot of people here have done the same.
I understand your point, though, but it wasn't what I was talking about.
I must be twice as frightning, as I typically blog naked around a bonfire.
Interesting commentary - but I disagree a bit. From this blog and others I visit, it seems more and more church goers are at least peeking in to see what the secular folks are a saying. Although I'm not sure any of the exchanges have taught me much, I still think any communication is typically better than none. If I gain nothing but the perspective of another, that's one more perspective I otherwise wouldn't have.
people who participate are typically better educated, more informed, more engaged, and more passionate about their causes than the general population.
Not necessarily. Heh.
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
I see you've been to Sean Hannity's board too.
"The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open."
~blush~ Gee, thanks.
You forgot better looking!
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
There are also rather intelligent, well informed conservative (no, I don't mean Hornback) and libertarian bloggers out there, not just the liberal ones the author seems to be alluding to near the end of the statement.
The general sentiments, however, are probably right. You have to care more than most about the subject matter addressed in someone's blog to go digging through it, much less comment on it. Given the current state of evolution in the blogosphere, that's probably a good thing.
One of the dangers that really concerns me about the explosive growth of blogs and other alternative media is how easy it's becoming for people to pull all their news entirely from sources sympathetic to their own biases. Another concern is that the line between editorializing and straight news reporting is blurred, and pure spin is turned verbatim into "news" items by media sympathetic to its slant. The looser the editorial controls, the easier it is for this to happen, making blogs at least theoretically more vulnerable than the "MSM." The more sympathetic the audience to the disinformation, the less critically it is going to be considered and the more readily it is going to be digested as fact.
Taken in conjunction with one another, you have the danger of a highly polarized society armed with completely different sets of data - some it selectively factual, some of it pure disinformation - and therefore unable to truly discuss their differences or find ground for compromise, commonality, or even a spirit of community. For all those reasons, it's best that the early adopters of alternative media are the most educated on the subject matter, the most actively engaged in the process, and - as a result of the first two - the most likely to detect BS when they read it.
At its very best, alternative media make it a lot easier to understand someone else's point of view, to gain a perspective completely different from the one that comes naturally to you. You probably won't agree with that perspective, but understanding the reasoning, the rationale, the value judgments, and the vision that goes into it makes it a lot easier to conduct a legitimate discussion of a topic in place of a "did to, did not" playground level argument. Sometimes, I find my own position on a subject moderating or even switching sides altogether on a specific topic by really studying the points of new that run contrary to my own natural bias.
There are also rather intelligent, well informed conservative (no, I don't mean Hornback) and libertarian bloggers out there, not just the liberal ones the author seems to be alluding to near the end of the statement.
Not sure how you read any "liberal bias" into my remarks. Maybe you could elaborate?
I mostly agree with the rest of your comments, except I think most people, especially people who follow blogs, can tell the difference between editorializing and straight reporting. There's actually not a lot of straight reporting on blogs, but it's growing.
I didn't mean to imply I read liberal bias into your remarks. I read them them in the remarks from your link as follows:
.
To clarify further, when you said:
I actually tried to say much the same thing when I said:
Hope that clears things up.
it's best that the early adopters of alternative media are the most educated on the subject matter, the most actively engaged in the process,
I got the BS detector part, just not the part above. I'm a little slow sometimes.
(I see I wasn't clear on which author you were referring to in your original first paragraph.)
I don't know Bubba, sounded to me like you wuz bein' called a dirty f'ing hippie liberal scumbag, but then, I take offense easily. :-)
An aside: I saw the coolest car sticker, one of those white/black ovals with just letters (usually of where you went on vacation) and it had DFH (dirty f'ing hippie.) It cracked me up. Now I want one.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
it seems more and more church goers are at least peeking in to see what the secular folks are a saying.
I think "church goers" are pretty well informed about what the secular folks are saying, and have been saying. Whether they agree with it or not is a different issue.
Remember, us church goers work in the secular world and pay attention to the secular media.
Church goers do not actually live in the churches. Some visit frequently, some don't.
Of course many church goers may not feel welcome or comfortable on many blogs, or they don't like dealing with personal attacks that some people may make. Some blogs, when discussing important issues, tend to break down into tit-for-tat personal attacks the first time someone disagrees with someone else.
And then there are people like me who live by the old saying "I never learn anything by talking, only by listening." And that's what I tend to do. Most of the time. That probably applies to a large number of non-church goers as well.
...is a personal attack?
Sort of like a Naturalist having prayer espoused to them at government functions, football games, civic meetings, etc. etc. I guess the reverse is something Christians are going to have to get used to; Link...
...is a personal attack?
I wasn't talking about you, or even this community. Sure, some people get a bit heated, I have myself, and spent time focusing on the commentator and not the comments.
Sort like a Naturalist having prayer espoused to them at government functions, football games, civic meetings, etc. etc. I guess the reverse is something Christians are going to have to get used to
And that wasn't what I was referring to either. Other blogs have a number of commentators who are simply trying to get people riled up by making highly personal and offensive attacks. Ive not commented at other blog sites that I've visited because I didn't want to lower myself to that kind of discourse.
I'm sure that a lot of people here have done the same.
I understand your point, though, but it wasn't what I was talking about.
Post new comment