Angus Dei, a pending member at Bloghounds, has done the statutory blogger thing and looked inwards at why he blogs. The message is remarkably consistent with what other bloggers have also felt:
Good and that's the spirit within which most people blog and so we fisk away and blithely post. As it's usually Gordo or the NHS on the receiving end, who are in no position to fight back, everything is hunky-dory. Where it starts to falter is when the wrong 'un is apparently another blogger - then the thing gets murky and the right to freedom of expression is suddenly withdrawn by the accused. Suddenly suppression and threats are on the agenda.
I take the point of view that if you're willing to dish it out and willing to justify it with supporting evidence, then you have to be willing to cop it in return. You'll be posted on in none too flattering [and in your view - unjustified] terms. Ho hum. The principle of the blogosphere has always been freedom of expression and as most of us have relatively small readerships, it's pretty pointless worrying ourselves too much over it, once the hue and cry is done. Voltaire once reportedly referred to it this way:
In the end, a bit of common sense and a thick hide are the required attributes of a good political blogger. We do find ourselves spammed and trolled at times though; unpleasant types also wish to hijack our comments sections.
Comment moderation is a pretty effective deterrent there, when used sparingly. I don't particularly like to use it, as it depersonalizes the whole blogging experience but sometimes it's necessary - there are some crazy people out there in the sphere.
So yes, blogging's largely a rewarding thing but keep an eye peeled over one shoulder, all the same.
UPDATE WEDNESDAY MORNING: I continue the theme in the comments section. Ordo has also posted on a blogger whom some Welsh MPs have tried to silence.
Blogging enables people to communicate, it enables discussion, and a chance to join together against the things that really irritate us, or things that are wrong. I know why I blog, I do it to keep sane, I do it because I want to get a message out to people and perhaps just maybe make a tiny difference to this tortured world and all the tortured souls in it.
Good and that's the spirit within which most people blog and so we fisk away and blithely post. As it's usually Gordo or the NHS on the receiving end, who are in no position to fight back, everything is hunky-dory. Where it starts to falter is when the wrong 'un is apparently another blogger - then the thing gets murky and the right to freedom of expression is suddenly withdrawn by the accused. Suddenly suppression and threats are on the agenda.
I take the point of view that if you're willing to dish it out and willing to justify it with supporting evidence, then you have to be willing to cop it in return. You'll be posted on in none too flattering [and in your view - unjustified] terms. Ho hum. The principle of the blogosphere has always been freedom of expression and as most of us have relatively small readerships, it's pretty pointless worrying ourselves too much over it, once the hue and cry is done. Voltaire once reportedly referred to it this way:
What a fuss over an omelette.
In the end, a bit of common sense and a thick hide are the required attributes of a good political blogger. We do find ourselves spammed and trolled at times though; unpleasant types also wish to hijack our comments sections.
Comment moderation is a pretty effective deterrent there, when used sparingly. I don't particularly like to use it, as it depersonalizes the whole blogging experience but sometimes it's necessary - there are some crazy people out there in the sphere.
So yes, blogging's largely a rewarding thing but keep an eye peeled over one shoulder, all the same.
UPDATE WEDNESDAY MORNING: I continue the theme in the comments section. Ordo has also posted on a blogger whom some Welsh MPs have tried to silence.
Well said, as usual, James
ReplyDeleteThe blogosphere is not the MSM and yet there is a generally held feeling that the blogger has to be responsible in making statements and should at least have based it on some sort of evidence, though that evidence is disputed, i.e. there should be quotes.
ReplyDeleteThen there comes a period where there must be right of reply, both at the site and elsewhere. Things would normally be left at that and other issues moved on to.
Most bloggers are in no position to get into heavy things and need to feel that they have a fair leeway in saying what they wish. This has always been a fundamental principle separating the blogosphere from the MSM.
Once the principle applies that the blogger cannot speak freely on what he/she believes to be the case [and that is a key issue here - if he/she really believes it], then we get into suppression and the Schillings/Usmanov situation where bloggers can be put off the web for stating a case.
That doesn't bear thinking about.
Ultimately, and in my opinion, blogging can be moulded into a myriad of forms, from 'dear diary' through art/rock formations to utter badness.
ReplyDeleteMy personal take on the issue (for what it's worth)can be read here.
Free (honest) speech and the right to reply is always the right to reply.
ReplyDelete