Monday, November 21, 2005

NOW I'm getting annoyed with my ideological colleagues.


Well, it seems like everyone's got an opinion on this recent blogging integrity dust-up, and how to (or how not to) resolve it. For example, we have one Werner Patels who writes thusly (emphasis added):

The Canadian blogosphere is about to face yet another war - one that will see bloggers from the left slug it out with bloggers on the right...

There's more, and it similarly off-the-mark. There is no "blogging war" here. What there is, quite simply, is an outstanding issue that is sitting in the middle of the table that the Blogging Tories seem to want to avoid discussing, and that's what to do when one of their own is caught fibbing.

There is no impending war; there is no looming smackdown; there is no imminent battle. What there is is a simple unresolved question that deserves an answer: How do the Blogging Tories plan on policing other peoples' integrity if they're singularly incapable of looking after their own?

That's the only question on the floor at the moment, and it deserves addressing. All this talk of "war" is simply worthless chatter.

8 comments:

PR said...

Maybe you should write another 5 posts that say the exact same thing?

Grog said...

Although the topic is actually raising a rather valid question - that of what amounts to journalistic integrity among bloggers.

Granted, few are journalists per se, but there is a tendency for outright flamewars to break out (a la Usenet) when bloggers start misrepresenting or twisting the available facts to match their position/ideology.

While one cannot avoid that - after all most blogs are opinion pieces anyhow, I think it behooves all bloggers to honestly cite their sources. (E.g. provide links to the appropriate stories that substantiate or provide the basis for the story)

While this doesn't clean up the tendency for wars of interpretation to break out, I think it does provide a reasonable basis for critical thinking readers to evaluate a given blogger's position/interpretation of events.

(also, it tends to make it a lot harder to write sneering condemnations of a given ideology - when you have to substantiate a position, one tends to find their own understanding moderating considerably)

Simon Pole said...

Should the blogosphere elect an ombudsman a la the Washington Post? Or perhaps a speaker?

Should we have a board of the blogosphere? Then we can start making jokes about bored of the blogosophere. HA HA HA...

CC said...

... I think it behooves all bloggers to honestly cite their sources. (E.g. provide links to the appropriate stories that substantiate or provide the basis for the story)

This wouldn't, of course, be a complete solution if one uses crap sources like NewsMax, Bill O'Reilly, The Washington Times and so on, as Mr. Strong has an unfortunate habit of doing.

There's no doubt Strong can back up everything he writes by pointing at sources -- it's just that his sources are worthless, right-wing garbage.

Steve said...

You seem to be the type who thinks no transgression should go unpunished. With such a finely tuned sense of justice, it must be difficult for you to travel on four-lane highways with all those cars passing you going over the speed limit. Where are the police? How can other drivers condone such illegal behaviour?

Although I have not seen the initial, offending article, the fallout continues to litter the blogosphere. If it is about Bush or the Republicans, I couldn't care less. Canada is what interests me.

I have never understood why many Blogging Tories take such an interest in, or show their support for Republican politics. It is foreign to me and probably more indicative of what we should avoid in this country.

Moreover, Bush does not have to answer to Canadian voters, so why waste any political capital defending him? Most Canadians do not like him, so it is best to keep your distance.

Similarly, many Progressive Bloggers get down right apoplectic at anything American, Michael Moore excepted. I suspect this is what motivates you on this "issue." Give it a break and stick to Canadian issues.

Grog said...

CC - at least if people are citing their sources, they can be reasonably challenged.

I'm not saying I propose a "perfect solution", only that there is a requirement to be basically honest. Crappy sources will tend to wither and die on the vine over time if they can be consistently discredited.

(In Alberta we used to have a magazine called "Alberta Report" which pretended to be a newsmagazine, but rather ignored the task of doing actual journalism. It eventually withered and died once people realized that it was a platform for the Byfield family's particular political viewpoints, facts notwithstanding)

CC said...

"steve" writes:

You seem to be the type who thinks no transgression should go unpunished. With such a finely tuned sense of justice, it must be difficult for you to travel on four-lane highways with all those cars passing you going over the speed limit.

Dude ... I am one of those cars passing everyone going over the speed limit. And as for the rest of your silliness:

Although I have not seen the initial, offending article, ...

Gee, you think maybe you might want to invest the time to not sound like such a doofus, then?

... the fallout continues to litter the blogosphere. If it is about Bush or the Republicans, I couldn't care less. Canada is what interests me.

The actual topic isn't even relevant here. What's relevant is that a blogger was simply, flat-out, bald-faced lying his face off about something and changing his story frantically to try to salvage the situation, and also that this blogger is a member of the Blogging Tories and not one of them thus far seems bothered in the least by his dishonesty.

The issue wasn't whether the topic was Canadian politics, American politics, Isreali politics, Indonesian politics or freakin' Martian politics. Or whether it was softwood lumber, global warming or the price of cheese in Denmark. It was the lying that was the issue.

And given that this man represents the collective Blogging Tories of Canada, this is exactly what should interest you -- if you find out people are lying to you. Unless, of course, that doesn't bother you, in which case both of us are wasting our time here.

Do we understand one another now?

Steve said...

I would have to care about the subject enough to know that he was lying. I don't so I didn't call him on it. American politics at that level of detail simply does not interest me.

You will note if you peruse my blog and the comments that I leave on other blogs, including those of other Blogging Tories, that if I do care about a subject and disagree with their viewpoint, particularly if it reflects badly on the CPC, I do not hesitate to say so. (See this for example.)

Life is too short to be correcting everything I disagree with. I prefer to save my powder for things where I think I have something to add.