On echo chambers, banned posts, and public affairs
Noted columnist Adam Radwanski has some strong opinions about the blogosphere, opinions he shared with the influential Public Affairs Association of Canada (PAAC). I have to say that in general, he's probably right, or at least not far wrong. How I run my blog involves a conscious effort to counter some of the trends he's seeing.
From Adam Radwanski's July 31 column for the National Post:
The blogosphere is good for music and trading notes on pop culture. It can be great for sports commentary. It's a way to pass time for those interested in reading the mundane details of strangers' personal lives.But what it is absolutely lousy for is political debate -- mostly because what it encourages is not debate at all, so much as support groups in which the converted preach to one another about the evils of some dark and mysterious enemy.
Those frequenting blogs don't learn much and their views are rarely challenged. What they get out of the experience is having their own views reinforced over and over again, until even relative moderates are converted into hard-liners.
This can certainly happen. People tend to go places where they feel comfortable, and that means where they are treated with some respect. The problem is that political debate tends to be very personal. Everyone engages in ad hominem attacks, it seems. Go to rabble.ca discussion forums to get a taste of how contrary positions are treated. Generally the person is told to f*** off and then is banned by the moderator.
It's not much better on the right.
That's why my tag line has always been "Taking sloppy liberal thinking and tearing it a new one -- but always with a touch of class." I expect the same in terms of polite behaviour from everyone here. I want people to have the courage of their convictions, but I don't want people to engage in name calling. I've stepped in on occassion to warn people off attacks that were getting personal.
Invariably, the offender apologized and the discussion continued.
Why do I make that effort? Radwanksi explains:
Here, the right is a little more organized than the left - the "Blogging Tories" group creating a community of hundreds of like-minded blogs with similar obsessions (the liberal media, pacifists, etc.) to the ones found south of the border. But it's the Canadian left that has actually shown the biggest crossover into mainstream media, courtesy of Antonia Zerbisias - a media columnist and blogger for the Toronto Star whose main job appears to be attacking conservative commentators on both sides of the border.
True, we don't yet have entire TV programs devoted to advancing an ideology. But with commentators increasingly emulating the zealous partisanship of the online crowd in the hope of eliciting similarly strong reactions, it might not be long. It's a trend that should remind us to hold ourselves to a higher standard, to seek out dissenting views and think critically about the perspectives being sold to us...
I protect everyone who comes here. I try to read all the comments posted and try to jump in if things are getting out of hand. I might miss the occassional insult, but in general, I think I've been successful, if only for the lack of cursing that I see. As for seeking out dissenting views, I've always insisted on carrying the blogrolls of the Liberal blogs, the NDP blogs, the non-partisan blogs, and so forth, along with the roll of Blogging Tories. I was once given some heat for that, told that I should not be directing traffic to these other groups. I stood my ground and insisted that this was not about the flow of traffic, but about the flow of ideas. I have no problem whatsoever to have someone read something here, then click over to an NDP blog to comment on just how foolish I am. Because when someone does that, the readers will click back here and read my foolishness for themselves. Maybe one or two might see a tiny nugget of wisdom in my foolish scribblings.
Recently Deb Frisch posted a phony suicide note on this blog, signing the name of a conservative American blogger. It was quite the event, and I seriously considered banning her. I elicited a lot of responses to the question of whether I ought to ban her, and I'll share my decision now because it seems relevant to Radwanski's point.
I did not ban Deb Frisch's IP address, though with her legal troubles, the issue might be moot. In any case, as nasty as her original suicide note was, the fakery was quickly spotted, and she was immediately taken to task by the readership. I don't need to protect my readers from Deb Frisch. They're smart enough to deal with the likes of her.
Nor do I need to protect them from ideas from the right, centre, or left. I hope my blog, though the readership is generally conservative, is a place where ideas are welcome, not just a particular brand of politics.
This is the reason why I've been worried that the Liberal Party might be on the verge of being destroyed. Like my blog, a country thrives when there is a wide range of ideas vying for support of the populace. I'm a conservative, yes, but I'm also a Canadian. Though my party my benefit in the short term from a Liberal Party falling apart, my country as a whole will suffer if conservative ideas are not being tested again the best that the left side of the political spectrum can offer.
I suppose that non-partisan view of blogging is why Adam Radwanki addressed the Public Affairs Association of Canada (PAAC):
Blog Jam: How the New Media is
Quickly Getting Old
Adam Radwanski
National Post Editorial Writer and Noted Blogger, offers his take on the Blogosphere which he appraised critically in a July 31 Post column
August 23, 2006
11:45 a.m. Registration 12:00 p.m. Lunch
Sutton Place Hotel, 995 Bay Street at Wellesley Street West, Toronto
The PAAC covers a wide range of functions, across the political spectrum:
The Public Affairs Association is a premiere forum for interacting with those whose professional interests or responsibilities lie in the areas of issues management, government relations, trend analysis, policy development, strategic planning, audience or constituency relations -- including public, media, labour and investor relations -- and communications specialists in areas such as advertising and constituency marketing.
There is nothing right or left here. It's about ideas, about presenting them, about understanding their effect on people, and about evaluating their worth. Ideally, the chaotic democracy of the blogosphere can have a role in that too, but only if ideas are given the widest possible exposure to a group with the greatest amount of freedom to think.
That's why I try to run a nice place at Angry in the Great White North, where everyone is welcome to think.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
blogosphere left right liberal conservative Adam Radwanski Deb Frisch Public Affairs Association of Canada PAAC
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
"Those frequenting blogs don't learn much and their views are rarely challenged. What they get out of the experience is having their own views reinforced over and over again, until even relative moderates are converted into hard-liners."
Radwanski is right insofar as most blogs offer little insightful commentary. Far too many bloggers simply quote from an article and make a few remarks about whether it's good or bad. Out of the sheer number of American blogs, some down there have managed to deliver unique and indepth analysis. We need analysis here too.
Though we need blogs as a simple advertising tool of good articles, I hope to see the conservative Canadian blogosphere move towards a more intellectual focused movement. Professionals, write from your expert perspectives. Enthusiasts, apply your own brands of expertise. Maturing conservatives, tell us about your journeys.
If our content is compelling, readers will come. The Kool-Aid drinkers will always drink, but the blogosphere's our chance to bring, through reason, yet another demographic into our fold.
Posted by: Art at August 24, 2006 12:54 AM
He missed the networking. We all have our own little "non political" circles that are probably as large as the political ones.
When one blogger sees something hot that is written in the Timbuktu Courier and posts it with a link. His or her readers pick it up and post it on their blog with a hat tip. Next thing you know that little piece of info has travelled via "word of blog" all the way to the readers of the Toronto Star or any other Canwest Global chain paper and maybe...just maybe....a convert is born.
Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at August 24, 2006 06:55 AM
Worrying about the demise of the Liberal Party seems like worrying that the Sun won't rise in the morning. As long was people engage in wishful thinking and prefer comfortable lies to honesty, the Liberals will be here. Look at the survival of the Red Star and the Mop & Pail.
Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2006 07:20 AM
Steve, you are absolutely right about the one party country. When the PC party self destructed, the Liberals had years of free rein. We have no armed forces to speak of. We have no control over immigration. Lies and scandals aplenty. So, yes we need checks and balances. As for the blogosphere, I read different sites for news of what is going on in the world. It has left me of the opinion that the ads may be the only things to be taken at face value in the MSM.
Posted by: rick at August 24, 2006 08:37 AM
Very nice article. I agree that to allow your opinions to calcify due to strong alignment with a potentially bogus political perception is a mistake.
I guess you'd call me a Red Tory - I believe in taking responsibility for my own life and butting out of the personal aspects of other people's lives which don't affect me in any way. I support and admire PMSH thus far.
I believe that all ideas should be considered and that disagreement should be actively encouraged - it forces one to reevaluate and analyze their own position, whch is very important. Once people start stereotyping others, as we have seen in the US to a greater degree than in Canada, the whole thing becomes some kind of dysfunctional circus, one big political cartoon.
It's never that cut-and-dried in real life.
You are doing a great job here, Steve.
Posted by: Selma at August 24, 2006 09:14 AM
I personally don't see it as a bad thing if the Liberal Party implodes. I see it as a catylist for some long overdue change in the way our population views itself. With a vacuume in the center left, the centrists will move to the CPC (which is purely centrist in spite of what the left thinks or asserts)leaving those who lean more left to join the radical socialists in the NDP and Green parties. I see it as a polarization of sorts and it's long overdue. Without a mushy "middle" option with the LPC (an easy selection because people don't have to think about it), Canadians are going to have to choose between the "real centrists" or the "real socialists" when it comes to voting. Black or white.
Given a choice like that, I think the electorate would make the correct decision.
As for the blogs, I agree that Steve used the proper model for his blog and I'm glad that I've patterned my own after his. Echo chambers suck and nothing is gained from them.
Keep up the great work Steve!
Posted by: Richard Evans at August 24, 2006 10:05 AM
Radwanski is nothing more than a GTA far left Liberal who has not presented much in the way of critical thinking in any of his National Post columns or on his blog. Just flaccid empty regurgitation of Trudeaupian liberal pap.
Like most Liberals it does not matter how often their ideology or ideas have been proven to be ineffective or flat out wrong, they seem to think that it is not their ideological square pegs that will not fit into the round holes of reality, but that the round holes of reality are wrong and need to be adapted to fit the square pegs of Liberal ideology.
Virtaully everything Radwanski produces is written from the superior GTA liberal point of view.
His article is nothing more than a projection of his own journalistic shortcomings.
Posted by: Ward at August 24, 2006 11:23 AM
I disagree to some extent. For me, I was hearing from media and our former government what Canadians believe, value, and think. I did not believe, value, or think what they were preaching. I was truly disheartened and pessimistic about my country and the socialist attitude professed. It was wonderful to find "other" Canadians on the blogs who do not believe in the left ideology.
Blogs have a variety of uses... in my case, it is a way, as Kate at SDA states, to shout "You don't speak for me"
Posted by: Lanny at August 24, 2006 12:14 PM
I have been "hooked" on this blog and four or five others since the last election. I personally disagree that bloggers don't learn much.
When I started visiting this blog and others, I saw the results of the last election solidifying. the election was a confirmation of what we saw on these sites.
I particularly enjoy the "tidbits" of information not readily available in the MSM.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Walter at August 24, 2006 12:37 PM
Should we be surprised that left leaning jounalists Zerbisias et al, promote left blogs?
Radwanski misses the point. Print media readership is in decline. Blog readership is growing. So clearly people are moving from one to the other. He really needs to ask why the traditional media no longer serve.
The blogosphere is refreshingly honest in admitting left vs right, whereas the traditional media continue to pretend bias does not exist. It is hard to debate a fool, Adam.
So if I have a choice in spending time online, I would rather waste it reading Styn that Zerbisias. If the result is reinforcing my personal 'slightly to the right of my Atilla the Hun' viewpoint, then I am OK with that as well.
Posted by: john at August 24, 2006 01:16 PM
"issues management, government relations, trend analysis, policy development, strategic planning, audience or constituency relations..."
"There is nothing right or left here."
Sounds pretty left-wing to me. Something called the Public Affairs Association of Canada doesn't sound like anything a real entrepreneur would waste time on. But as for government hacks, corporate welfare types, lobbyists, media pundits, public-funded intellectuals and unions ... trend analysis and policy development is right up their alley.
Posted by: at August 24, 2006 10:27 PM
P.S. I just checked the personnel running PAAC and they are 100% lobbyists, politicians and/or government employees, many of them having moved back and forth between these, ah, professions. Now why would anyone who is interested in counteracting "zealous partisanship" on the Internet go to a bunch non-Internet, government hacks and flacks to complain about it ... unless they want the members of the Committee for Public Safety - err, I mean PAAC - to tame and control the Internet. While simultaneously fleecing the public and making them feel grateful that all that awesome responsibility of freedom has been lifted from their backs.
I suppose to this sort of person, something like PAAC is a warm refuge from the clash of ideas which goes on in the real world. In PAAC there is only one party, the Government Party.
Posted by: at August 24, 2006 10:42 PM
 
|
|
