Two degrees of separation. How utterly yawnful.
AFTERSNARK: I already left a comment on that piece, but there was so much more that was mockworthy, like Bowman's bizarre contention:
Blogs aren't moderated or censored.
Someone should suggest to John that he get out more often.
WOW. It's almost lunchtime, it's been over six hours since I submitted my comment, and ... nothing -- not a single comment has so far passed muster at Mr. Bowman's cozy little corner of the MSM-o-sphere.
Someone should suggest to John that he really shouldn't write about blogs, since he doesn't have a fucking clue how this whole blogosphere thing works. Seriously. Suggest it. Tell him I sent you.
13 comments:
Not one mention of good or bad faith in that entire post. Maybe it's something the establishment media is having a hard time coming to terms with or maybe it's just not a principle they're aware of.
The biggest criticism I have of the establishment media is the "clubbiness" that rarely permits them to mention directly who they're referring to elsewhere in the media, while being unsparingly and witheringly critical of mere bloggers (not without some justification, mind).
I always thought the CBC could develop some sophistication in that respect, performing a public service "corporate media watch" function, but it rarely has.
Just wait 'til you read my comment, if they decide to publish it.
It's brilliant. Really. You'll see.
Well, let's just hope it didn't manifest too much incivility or vitriol or candour or any other element of honest communication that has a hard time getting through the various filters the establishment media has in place to weed out unacceptable expression.
Despite looking way down their noses at mere bloggers and commenters, they still want, for no fee, the rights to whatever you say there:
By submitting your comments you acknowledge that CBC has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever.
Barbara Kay quoted you (or at least your post title "Dear Liberals: you fucking suck") -- without acknowledgment -- in her column about the blogospheric reaction to C-484 earlier this week.
These people really are too much.
That should be "Screeching harridan Barbara Kay, in her post about hysterical feminists quoted..."
I've always thought of Barbara and Jonathan Kay as being Canada's version of Lucianne and Jonah Goldberg.
Linked in that article: Raphael Alexander, Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan, the Blogging Tories, Peggy Noonan, Andrew Keen, the Financial Times, and XKCD.
Total right-wing: 4.
Self-identifying centrists or non-political: 4. (I'm including Raph here because he appears to be spurned by all and sundry these days.)
Total left-wing: 0.
How often is the CBC accused of having a right-wing bias?
Total left-wing: 0.
I didn't check the links...It's worse than I thought.
Notice how hyper-linking gives the illusion of proper sourcing (and thus, suggests evidence-based argumentation) while being nothing of the sort. It was the first criticism I had of hypertext back when I first encountered it in 1988. Hypertext and multi-tasking...two of the most overused innovations to come out of the Information Age.
Ooooooooh ... nice catch, M@.
I sent a reply. Under pale...so it probably will not appear...lol
I always get such a chuckle when the media says things like:
(I've written here about how blogs can perpetuate a falsehood that would never stand up to the scrutiny of a watchful news editor.)
You mean the same type of editors that have been publishing those completely inaccurate op-eds at the National Post?
Actually, blogs are under the watchful eye of the readers. And in that sense they are far more effectual than a corporate owned, politically biased editor.
The blogs are the only watchdogs to the media now. Since it seems we have the most saturated media in the world. Just a handful of companies are controlling the information over the airwaves and the print medium. Welcome to the wild and wooly world of the Intert00bz. We are watching. And we do that far better than many "editors".
Yes, Pale, let's have the National Post lecture the rest of us on journalistic accuracy, rigour and editorial fact-checking. After all, what could possibly go wrong?
Well as I said. Not posted. 2FF. Stageleft left another comment...So I had to try again....Don't ya just lurve obtuse people who write about blogs, but really haven't a clue what they are about?
The first paragraph is Bowman's comment to stageleft:
"For years, Boing Boing didn't allow comments, not because they were seeking to silence dissenting voices, but because of the time required to moderate the comments. And, yes, moderating comments is necessary for various reasons: comment spam, abusive or vulgar posts, etc."
Or as the case at this "blog" one doesn't like the content of the comment. Stageleft has it right...You don't understand blogging...
Do tell, why there was not one! Left wing progressive blog in your list?
That is causing some amount of interest for sure...
"By submitting your comments you acknowledge that CBC has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever."
That means they can add, subtract, or rearrange your words to make it seem like your comment says precisely the opposite of what you actually said.
Borrowing (stealing) the idea from the American Congressional Record?
Post a Comment