March 24, 2005
Internet: We can't plead ignorance
The monotone of the evening news has been replaced by the cacophony of a million web voices. No longer can the network anchorman wrap up the news and expect it to stay wrapped. The education of Dan Rather by bloggers is best recent example. My father used to yell at the television screen to no effect. Today people don’t trust news if they can’t talk back and be heard. A free market of ideas is replacing centralized control. Everyone has the power to ask questions and to speak truth to power. We all have the power now, although not everyone knows how to use it.
Free markets are usually better than centralized control, but they look messier and more chaotic. Information consumers must be smarter and take more responsibility for their own educations.
Remember - you don't have the right to know. You have the right to try to find out. Nobody is going to give you the news without a spin because nobody can. Everyone understands the complex world using his own simplification, mental model and when he gives you the news he gives you his model. All models are NOT created equal. Some work better than others and the only way to know which are best is to compare them.
We at Watchblog know this well. All of us have an equal opportunity to write, but not all of us are equally heard or believed. We have seen ideas evolve and consensuses develop and be dashed. Writers have no obligation to tell the truth or be honest, but marketplace of ideas disciplines us. If we are wrong too often, nobody believes us. This is the future of the news and it is not a bad future.
Of course, the establishment is less enthusiastic about these changes. They decry the new media and even seek to limit and control it
In the political world my belief is that the new media has largely benefited conservatives because it enabled them to go around the traditional media. I am convinced that without bloggers, John Kerry would be president of the U.S. today. Dan Rather would have had the last word on the National Guard story and the networks would have judged George Bush and found him wanting. This will not always be the case. As conservatives become the establishment, liberals will be able to use the same tools to push them off the pedestal. As in the free market economy, the free market of ideas allows for innovation. The quickest and the best innovators win.
Thanks to Beagle for the inspiration to write this article.
Posted by Jack at March 24, 2005 05:44 PMThis is the future of the news and it is not a bad future.
Hear, hear!
Posted by: Chops at March 24, 2005 06:16 PMJack,
All that is nescessary to use this new found information source is a good baloney filter.
We need to be able to recognize the real information amongst the cacophony of crap we are bombarded with every day.
Rocky
I agree.
The test of veracity is predictive value. If you look at a source of information for a reasonably long period, you can see if they things they said turned out to be true. If predictions are systematically wrong there is evidence of bias. If they are clustered more or less regularly around the true result, it is a good source.
Unfortunately, without a track record it is hard to tell the crap from the truth. A lot of things sound really good, but don’t pan out and some times people are just lucky (or not). But a decent record allows a judgment.
The “new media” provides more background. That’s good.
Jack, it is not true that one cannot get news without spin. Some news is merely a presentation of facts. Much news tries to give meaning to the facts, and that is where the spin comes in. It is indeed up to each person to ask what the facts mean. But, on the other hand, places like Factcheck.Org and CitizenJoe.com are places which present facts.
Bloggers and anchors make use of those facts as a foundation for their spin and meaning.
CitizenJoe for example has writers from political perspectives cover the bills passing through congress, but, to minimize or even eliminate spin and bias, every democrats article is vetted by a republican and vice versa to insure facts are presented, not spin: or if spin is involved, it is presented from both sides in the same article.
Everyone has the power to ask questions and to speak truth to power.
No, sorry, can’t agree with that statement. Everyone may ask questions and speak truth to political representatives, true enough, but, your statement implies that power will listen. Power listens to money first, since election and reelection is the first priority, then they will listen to those of like party or philosophy in their pursuit of constituents who agree with them to tout as support, and finally, on the bottom rung, are those constituents who speak truth or opposing views. This last priority on representatives listening capacity is ordinarily only heard when their numbers of voices overwhelm the voices on the upper two rungs, and sometimes not even then.
So, if you meant your words literally, I agree. If you meant to imply power listens, my caveats above are in order.
David
I believe that a person can speak truth to power IF he builds a reputation and constituency. Why should a person in power listen to just anyone. It is the fallacy of “the common man” Collectively the common man is the most important thing in the country. But any particular common man is not. The common man has to make himself uncommon to count as an individual. That can be a lot of work and there is a lot of competition.
I don’t believe it is possible to be unbiased. The best we can do is share biases or acknowledge them. For example, I expect all our leaders to be biased in the direction of supporting truth, justice and the American way. The example you mention about the two parties vetting each other’s work is implicitly biased in favor of the two party system.
The most effective way to inject influence into an issue is by framing and agenda setting. Even fact check is subject to this because they choose to check some sets of facts and not others. One of the dirtiest tricks you can pull on an opponent is to get him investigated by an unbiased investigator. I just filed my taxes, for example. I think I was honest and I made no mistakes that I know of. Yet if a professional investigated me, he would find mistakes. If I made a mistake in my own favor, I might look dishonest. If I made a mistake that cost me money, I could look incompetent. Even if I did everything right, when the investigator reports that he found no evidence that I did anything wrong, many people would assume a cover up.
Since bias is inevitable, I like the marketplace of ideas concept for vetting the truth. We shall never achieve THE truth, but step by step we come closer to A truth that is useful.
I don’t see inherent good or evil in news organizations or individual bloggers. They have their advantages and their weakness. Many Bloggers are not professional journalists, cannot support themselves as reporters, rely on secondary sources or hearsay, and do not always have the discipline of those who have a career to lose over their mistakes.
At the same time, there is power to the grassroots approach bloggers can take. Together, they can allow the media a broader, yet more specific view of the events going on. However, the less disciplined nature of the Blogging field renders it vulnerable to being a pipeline for rumor, innuendo, partisanship and error. If this is combined with lazy news organizations, we could well end up with the entire market selling a defective product, and everybody saying “oh, we couldn’t be wrong”
I’ve seen other blogs, and few of them have the kind of debate-oriented, interparty competion which tends to keep folks here honest, and get people called when they do too much propagandizing and not enough fact-finding. I enjoy that. If I’m going to confront (or be confronted by) a partisan from the other side, I’d just as soon have a decent argument on the facts and their interpretation, rather than an insoluble fight over my audacity in not admitting the other side as Gospel truth.
There needs to be a balance between amateur, grassroots newsgathering, analysis, and commentary, and professional, such that the weaknesses of the different sides complement their counterpart’s strengths rather than amplify them.
There also needs to be a loyalty on all sides, political or professional, to the truth first, and personal interests second. Politics is an adaptation to a world we are not in complete control of. It is a means to the satisfaction of societies general needs, not an end in itself that can be perpetually put above it.
The danger of overreliance on blogs is that they can be so partisan as to preserve the influence of the elites by simple force of party loyalty. Where loyalty is greater towards a true (and not just a convenient) improvement of our understanding of the facts. I’d much rather have low party morale than abject ignorance.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2005 11:15 PMI can’t plead ignorance eh? WHY DON’T YOU TRY AND STOP ME?!??!?!
HUAHHAHAHAHHA!!1!!11!!one11!!!!1
Jack said “Why should a person in power listen to just anyone.”
Ahh… because that person is a constituent and representatives are supposed to represent their constituents interests as best they can ???? Eh?? Heard that somewhere in grade school. Probably not valid anymore in the USA (Union of Social Aristocrats).
The common man has to make himself uncommon to count as an individual.
Ahhh.. that is how D.C. rationalizes 40 million men, women, and children without health insurance and so much poverty in the richest nation on earth, and so many prisons with victimless criminals that we have to let pedophiles and murderers out to prey again. I was wondering how they did that. They are not uncommon so government has no obligation to their plight or cause. I see.
Since bias is inevitable, I like the marketplace of ideas concept for vetting the truth. We shall never achieve THE truth, but step by step we come closer to A truth that is useful.
What a cynical view. I have known many persons who are capable of stating truth though it contradicts values and beliefs they choose to believe in. I think you are lowering the bar and demanding very little of people - which would explain so much real malpractice in America and so much crime, and so many high school dropouts and so many single parents and 50% divorce rates, and ambulance chasers, etc. etc. You know those things that cost and hurt us all as a society.
Truth is not easy, truth is often not pleasant. But truth does exist in all of the ways a human may know something. Truth is something our society should be striving for from birth to death, but, who is to teach us to do so in a society where we expect so little of ourselves and each other?
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2005 01:03 AMFYI. This Administration is now planning to regulate the Internet.
Posted by: Aldous at March 25, 2005 04:59 AMI am convinced that without bloggers, John Kerry would be president of the U.S. today.
Me too, but not because they were disseminating The Truth. But, good article Jack.
It’ll be interesting to see how the FEC decides to regulate blogs like this,
Which people, what activities and where those lines should be drawn, though, have yet to be determined…Should bloggers who work for political campaigns, for example, be required to disclose that relationship? Should their writings include a disclaimer indicating that they were paid for by a campaign? What if a campaign supporter links his Web site to a candidate’s home page? Is that considered a campaign contribution subject to government regulation? What if an independent blogger endorses a candidate? Or posts a campaign’s news release? Are those contributions?
Or if we’re allowed to have blogs at all,
Former CIA Director George J. Tenet yesterday called for new security measures to guard against attacks on the United States that use the Internet, which he called “a potential Achilles’ heel.”“I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability,” he told an information-technology security conference in Washington, “but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control.”
Posted by: American Pundit at March 25, 2005 06:14 AM
Jack,
Thanks for the article and starting this thread.
I agree that you can’t force anyone to learn, seek the truth, research facts, or be inspired by opinion to rethink ones own position on an issue.
All that can be done is to make those things availiabe to those that seek more.
The internet does that.
Never before has the common man had access to so much information for so little cost and effort.
Just the news and blogs/debate would make it worth the effort, but there is so much more that is purely education, available free to anyone that seeks it.
The “tower of babble” has fallen, nolonger do you have to trust the opinion of someone anwsering the phone about what your rights are under a certain law, you can read the freakin law yourself online!
Even simple little things like ; when will the humming birds arive in your area on their spring migration north?
Gee wizz, there is a website that tracks nothing but that!
Pick any topic and you can find it instantly, it is limitless information available to anyone.
The only thing that Government should be involved in as far a regulating the internet is making sure that it is available to everyone reguardless of income.
Everyone that praises public education should agree, the internet is “public education” !
Just my opinion.
Posted by: Beagle at March 25, 2005 10:45 AMDavid
When I talk about bias, I am not necessarily talking about dishonesty or incompetence. I am biased in HOW I gather information. Even if I could be unbiased in my analysis, I have learned to trust some sources and not others because I believe them to be accurate. But that is only my belief. And I will say again that the biggest source of media manipulation is not in determining the “facts” but in setting the agenda. That is where the real battle is going on. Give me the power to set the limits of the agenda, and I can win almost any argument.
Most of us who contribute to Watchblog have similar information gathering biases. We don’t agree on politics, but we do agree on how to form and support arguments. That is a good thing, in my opinion, but it is a bias. We have all had experience with those who do not share our bias. We usually just think of them as misguided, but they may be educated in a different way. The biggest frustration I feel in arguments is not with those who won’t accept my facts or views, but those who don’t accept my method of finding facts and views. I am sure you agree.
I have had this experience with Europeans, especially the French. I am not going to trash them here, only point out a difference in how we gather and process information in a very broad sense. An educated Frenchman is very logical in the Cartesian sense. One thing follows another and when the analysis is finished there is a rule to be followed. They think linearly. Nothing wrong with this. Americans (and their Anglo relatives) are interested in effects and they are promiscuous with information sources. At the end of the analysis, they often have not produced a rule to be followed but rather a course of action subject to frequent correction. These different approaches to seeking truth will often produce very different conclusions from the same facts. These are biases. We really can’t get outside them and most of the time we don’t want to. Having to judge each situation without preexisting criteria would be impossible.
Obligatory Calvin and Hobbes quote:
Calvin: I’m being educated against my will! My rights are being trampled!
Hobbes: Is it a right to remain ignorant?
Calvin: I don’t know, but I refuse to find out!
Lawnboy,
In your previous post its hard define if your opinions relate more with Calvin or with Hobbes?
Posted by: Beagle at March 25, 2005 01:58 PMJack, that’s an interesting analysis of French. I’ve never worked with any French people, but I’ve worked with our Anglo cousins, the British. I have never met people who take such pleasure in coming up with absolutely the most complicated solution to a problem. From my experience, our thinking is more akin to Australians.
Beagle, I totally agree with your assessment of the internet. It’ll be a shame if anyone pays any attention to Tenet about it’s “governance and control”. Medal of Freedom recipient or not, I hope everyone has learned their lesson about listening to George “Slam Dunk” Tenet.
Posted by: American Pundit at March 26, 2005 08:34 AMAP
When I refer to our Anglo cousins, I include those of the British diaspora like the Australians and I agree that Australian decision making is more like American.
Cultural differences and similarities are an interesting subject and some consultants make piles of money advising firms on them. My point was just that we all are biased. It is unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing as long as we recognize it. It is the strength of true diversity that different biases and styles are adapted to different situations and tasks. That is why we can never agree and shouldn’t try to. That is why I prefer the marketplace for both ideas and goods & services.
Jack,
“That is why we can never agree and shouldn’t try to.” ??
I think sometimes opposing sides do at times agree, on some issues.
I know that everyone is biased on some issues, but sometimes the bias comes from limited knowledge of the issue in pratical terms or experience.
ie.. someone living in a big city might be biased against gun ownership because their only real knowledge or experiences with them have been negative( crime).
Someone in the country might have entierly different experiences and knowledge of guns, hunting, use aroung the farm, target pratice, trap shooting, ect.
Those are the kinds of biases that the internet can help reasonable persons overcome.
Without the internet, would any of this group likely ever, in their lifetime , converse or debate issues?
I’m sure some would feel their life would be better if they had never been subjected to my views on some things, but I enjoy everyones honest views, even if I can’t agree with them.
Posted by: Beagle at March 26, 2005 12:59 PMBeagle
Agreement and consensus are overrated.
We live in pluralistic society where we treasure the ability to do and say things other people don’t like. (That is why I dislike the PC crowd so much. They infridge on this right.)
I personally enjoy debate and conflict in some situations. It makes us better. I don’t believe everyone has a right to an opinion. I believe that you only have a right to those opinions you can and will defend.
However, a lot of things are not my business. In another part of this blog people are debating pot. I think anyone who smokes pot is an idiot, at least in that aspect of his life. If he smokes it in my house, I will kick him out. If he works for me, I will discipline him and if he tries to sell it to my kids I will have somebody beat him up, but otherwise I don’t care. If he wants to smoke in his house I don’t care. If he wants to grow plants, I don’t care. If he wants to smoke in the park, I only care if he makes a mess or acts stupid. If he wants to drive and smoke, I care only because he is a menace. I will never agree that pot is not a bad thing, but the extent of my not caring is great.
Jack,
If you have somehow mistaken me for the “PC” crowd, I think you missed the mark on that one.
As far as the pot/drug issue goes, I don’t use them or want them, but I’m willing to debate the pro’s/ con’s of making it legal.
If the opposing side of the issue presents their case for legalization, and I offer nothing but “no” in responce, who do you think will win that debate?
There are many issues that I will never yeild or compromise on, but I will debate them to express my point of view.
If I’m wrong in my thinking, please point out where.
Posted by: Beagle at March 26, 2005 07:53 PMBeagle
Of course I know you are not the PC crowd. I was writing also for the general audience.
My own point of view (probably similar to yours) is that pot should be regulated, legal and taxed because many people want to use it and we can’t stop them at a reasonable cost. But I am personally opposed to it, as I am to tobacco and the abuse of alcohol.
But all this strays from the Internet thread.
How’d we get on pot? The first one must have been free. ;>
Jack
I know I must misunderstand you when you say “I don’t believe everyone has a right to an opinion. I believe that you only have a right to those opinions you can and will defend.” You don’t really believe that those who can’t defend their views have no right to express them. Who, for example, would decide if they are adequately defended? (Me, of course, but others may disagree.)
Posted by: Mental Wimp at March 27, 2005 12:07 PMWimp
I believe we have an affirmative duty to think about what we believe.
What annoys me is when someone states some silly opinion and then justifies it by saying everyone is entitled to his own opinion. I don’t believe all opinions are equally valid. I don’t accept that anyone can state an opinion with impunity. I am not interested in making everyone feel equally validated.
Do you have a legal and constitutional right to hold an opinion no matter how stupid? Yes. Should we all accept that it is as valid as any other? No.
Jack and mental wimp,
You both make some good points that relate to the origional thread about the internet and its value to society.
I can agree that only opinions that can be defended (explained) are valid and worthy of screen space or responce.
On the other hand, who indeed gets to deside if the opinion/comment was defended or valid?
In my humble opinion the ones that will/should determine that, are the persons that only read the articles and posts.
That is the true power/educational value of the internet, and the very reason the MSM hates it so much.
The average Joe, without a masters degree in journalism, can express opinions on an issue that are thought provoking and perhaps change someones mind about that issue, or prompt them to research futher.
The very fact that someone with such limited writing/spelling skills as myself could promp someone with very good skills, to write an article based on an opinion, should prove that point.
I’m not saying that anyone was “duped” into anything, just someone with with superior skills in writing and “grey matter”, was inspired enough by an opinion, to write an article to debate the issue.
That is the true power/value of the internet, the days of an editorial that ammouts to little more than meaningless speel, of ( insert big word here), in perfect writing form, are gone.
Posted by: Beagle at March 27, 2005 01:54 PMBeagle
You are right. Opinions need not be expressed in elegant language. In fact there is nothing worse than an educated fool. That is why I like this marketplace of ideas. We all improve from the discourse. When I talk about the opinions we can defend, I mean only that they should think about them and defend them, not just fall back on the “it’s my opinion” defense.
And don’t look down on your writing skills. It seems to me that your ideas are very good and very well stated. I have learned a lot from reading your posts.
