Bloggers narrowly dodge federal crackdown

TalkBack 5 of 31:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

C'mon Carl: "You've found a source that agrees with what you believe, and so you accept what it says as the truth."

He never said he believes it, just that he has a bad feeling that more unconstitutional bogus legislation might be launched off the back of the McCain-Feingold garbage. I too share this suspicion. Typically a piece of crap legislation is passed as the initial pillar, and then little hiddedn pork makes it trough future bills to finish off what was originally intended by these crooks.

"That's the problem I see with the Internet in general and blogs in particular -- people tend to believe what they see and hear and read. At least with 'traditional' journalists, we have some expectation of professionalism and responsibility.."

Now Carl, that is being unbelieveably naive. Do you mean the way "traditional" journalist Dan Rather knowingly lied about that memo and how the pesky bloggers exposed this within a day or so?

"between the government's regulations and the standards (hopefully) imparted through training and education, we expect journalists to have a measure of objectivity."

Give me a break! You mean like Jeff Gannon, a "reporter" who turned out to be WORKING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE??? Who was engaging in active disinformation campaigns on the part of the white house?
Do you really believe that journalists are asking the hard questions of politicians? When was the last journalist you heard which asked the white house what PROOF it has that Iran is building the bomb? Or how about questioning why all the white house staff was already taking Cipro on 9/12/01, the very drug used to stop the anthrax that made its way into peoples' mail? Why were they all suddenly taking Cipro?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml

"But with bloggers, how do we determine the level of accuracy and responsibility? How thoroughly has the blogger researched?"

The EXACT same way we do with "traditional" journalists: we investigate for ourselves! No one reporter, paper, blogger, etc., should be taken at their word as the be all end all of truth. No matter where I am getting my information, I always try to find at least one other source making the same claims.
Well, just think: ALL media is lying through their teeth about 9/11 as well as a host of other terror related stuff, so why should they be given any more benefit of the duobt over a blogger?
Also, a big thing I look for is motive and agenda. Who stands to gain the most from the lies? Bloggers, who are really just strangers on the internet not working for a corporation, or big news media, who stand to gain enormously from cooked stories, half truths, and white lies?
Think about it Carl: The American and Israeli government stands to gain BIG TIME because of 9/11. Why then are they considered last (if even at all) as suspects, while people like myself are made to look like I have some secret plan behind all my rabblerousing, as though I stand to make millions of dollars off of whatever nonsense I am spouting? That's how I go by who I trust more: whoever stands to gain the most from something I trust the least! This is not to say that I blindly trust some blogger. But he really has nothing substantial to gain, other than possibly some stupid titillation over having duped a bunch of people for no good reason.
So we go back to the fundamental question: who profits the most from disinformation? Big news media, or strangers off the street?

"Again I get back to my original point. If bloggers want the protections afforded to 'traditional' journalists, they must also accept the responsibilities of 'traditional' journalists. If not, bloggers should be treated just like any other citizen."

I agree, although I don't think bloggers should be treated as journalists the way someone working for The New York Times should, simply because they really don't work for a news organization. However, I do not think this should mean that bloggers can be bullied and crapped on by big corporations looking to shut them up because they are exposing something which should get exposure.
So far, no fine line has been drawn, although I truly suspect that by the time the feds get done with blogging it will be a totally sterilized medium. Things like what happen with Dan Rather scare the crap out of those in power. It's a kind of immediate exposure I don't ever see them being comfy with.

"Should any media be required (as it is now) to provide equal time for candidates, or should a news channel be able to throw its entire weight behind a single candidate?"

I believe they should be able to do whatever they want. However, I would like to see all the propaganda and disinformation campaigns cease by the media. They have no business helping one side or the other to smear candidates.; Posted by: Jeff Spicoli Posted on: 03/25/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use