On Civility and Blogging
In reading posts about me (because I really am that self obsessed) I came across David Allen at www.thoughtcrimes.org. His writing and the writing of his colleagues such as Pamela Troy are very rich and thoughtful. Their analysis is typically deeper and more thought provoking (there's that word again!) than most and I highly recommend you check them out.
Most recently David took on the topic of Civility and Blogging, specifically regarding the bloggers hired to help on the John Edwards presidential campaign. Warning, the link to the article contains vulgar language (for those who are pearl clutchers or are legitimately or seriously offended by such language). I'm considering my own post on the topic, but here is part of his post first.
Since I've been tied to talk radio and blogging I want to point out the DIFFERENCE in the venues and the various rules that apply or don't apply. One of us is in a regulated medium with obscenity and indecency rules not only at the FCC level but at the company and sponsor level. Hint, it's not bloggers.
But I understand the underlying point of all the pearl clutching. They are using it because it works, that they are hypocrites about it doesn't faze them. That they can drive the conversation in the media to where they want it is the goal. Instead of talking about two America's and the tremendous economic insecurity in the middle class and future impact of a massive deficit, we spent four days talking about "civility". Score one for the pearl clutchers.
We need to understand that there are multiple layers and players in this game, and that one of their goals is derailing the important painful topics with ginned up "controversy".
Most recently David took on the topic of Civility and Blogging, specifically regarding the bloggers hired to help on the John Edwards presidential campaign. Warning, the link to the article contains vulgar language (for those who are pearl clutchers or are legitimately or seriously offended by such language). I'm considering my own post on the topic, but here is part of his post first.
What did these women do that was so offensive? They spoke the truth about some of the most vile individuals on the Right. Then those very same individuals clutched their pearls and got the vapors because these women used "vulgar" language expressed and themselves in a blunt fashion that these self-anointed guardians of civility deemed "uncivil".
As my friend Lex said, "Civility is the last refuge for the bully whose victim has started to fight back."
Civility is fine if everyone is going to play by the rules. But the rules were tossed out years ago. And there is a word for politicians who insist on being civil while their opponent uses every filthy, scummy trick in the book to win; and that word is LOSER.
Since I've been tied to talk radio and blogging I want to point out the DIFFERENCE in the venues and the various rules that apply or don't apply. One of us is in a regulated medium with obscenity and indecency rules not only at the FCC level but at the company and sponsor level. Hint, it's not bloggers.
But I understand the underlying point of all the pearl clutching. They are using it because it works, that they are hypocrites about it doesn't faze them. That they can drive the conversation in the media to where they want it is the goal. Instead of talking about two America's and the tremendous economic insecurity in the middle class and future impact of a massive deficit, we spent four days talking about "civility". Score one for the pearl clutchers.
We need to understand that there are multiple layers and players in this game, and that one of their goals is derailing the important painful topics with ginned up "controversy".
Labels: anti-Catholic, Bill Donohue, bloggers, double standards, KSFO, spocko, talk radio
