"I respectfully disagree"
Tonight I was reading in the Washington Post that House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (sadly, my Congressman) just walked out and "ended" a hearing about the reauthorization of the Patriot Act during testimony of witnesses against the Act. This action reminded me of the much talked about criticism of the DailyKos towards IPDI's Director, Carol Darr. (side note: Peter's comments on this)
Lately, it seems as if many people are no longer able to "respectfully disagree" with others. For Kos, the media has become an outlet to disagree by personal attacks, and not a way to disagree by presenting facts or a well-balanced or logical reasoning. The traditional media has also been host to many personal and not professional attacks by both political parties (particularly because of the amount of political ads).
However, despite these negative attacks through these forms of media, I was always glad that when I would watch C-Span (which is pretty much all the time) that Members of Congress could always "respectfully disagree" with those in opposition. That these Members could provide facts, proof, or at least a logical basis for their dissent, but would not bring up blatant personal attacks (at least in front of the cameras and on the floor). While technically Sensenbrenner did not verbally display his disagreement, he showed how completely disrespectful he is to those who disagree with him by not even allowing them to finish their testimony.
My point being, when the "respectful" is taken away from the disagreement, the credibility of that media or institution is called into question. In the case of the House and Sensenbrenner, the credibility of information coming from Congress and the Committees is questioned. But because of its roots and foundations, MSM and the decorum of Congress will not be completely threatened. Like economic markets, they will tend to adjust and correct their own problems.
Blogging and the "new media" perhaps will have a more difficult time in this "recovery". Interestingly, if Kos and other "key" bloggers wish to keep their base of readers and wish to expand the general populace's interest in blogs (political or non), one would think they would wish to keep their blogs professional. At least to only "attack" people on the merits of their ideas, not on their character (when that is not the issue at hand).
Because of its infancy, the new media is not ready for "personal politics", such as Kos' entries on Darr; at least if the new media/blogs wish to be a credible source for arguments and ideas in the future. Because of the wide appeal of Kos to blog readers, his decision to attack character and not merits could have devastating consequences--leading many to abandon reading blogs altogether. Hopefully, this was an isolated case and he can go back following the traditional motherly advice of "play nice"....
Lately, it seems as if many people are no longer able to "respectfully disagree" with others. For Kos, the media has become an outlet to disagree by personal attacks, and not a way to disagree by presenting facts or a well-balanced or logical reasoning. The traditional media has also been host to many personal and not professional attacks by both political parties (particularly because of the amount of political ads).
However, despite these negative attacks through these forms of media, I was always glad that when I would watch C-Span (which is pretty much all the time) that Members of Congress could always "respectfully disagree" with those in opposition. That these Members could provide facts, proof, or at least a logical basis for their dissent, but would not bring up blatant personal attacks (at least in front of the cameras and on the floor). While technically Sensenbrenner did not verbally display his disagreement, he showed how completely disrespectful he is to those who disagree with him by not even allowing them to finish their testimony.
My point being, when the "respectful" is taken away from the disagreement, the credibility of that media or institution is called into question. In the case of the House and Sensenbrenner, the credibility of information coming from Congress and the Committees is questioned. But because of its roots and foundations, MSM and the decorum of Congress will not be completely threatened. Like economic markets, they will tend to adjust and correct their own problems.
Blogging and the "new media" perhaps will have a more difficult time in this "recovery". Interestingly, if Kos and other "key" bloggers wish to keep their base of readers and wish to expand the general populace's interest in blogs (political or non), one would think they would wish to keep their blogs professional. At least to only "attack" people on the merits of their ideas, not on their character (when that is not the issue at hand).
Because of its infancy, the new media is not ready for "personal politics", such as Kos' entries on Darr; at least if the new media/blogs wish to be a credible source for arguments and ideas in the future. Because of the wide appeal of Kos to blog readers, his decision to attack character and not merits could have devastating consequences--leading many to abandon reading blogs altogether. Hopefully, this was an isolated case and he can go back following the traditional motherly advice of "play nice"....
5 Comments:
But how many people are attracted to blogging simply because they feel its a venue in which they can attack those with whom they disagree? The "old" media, what with their silly sticking to libel laws and eschewing ranting in favor of reasoned thought )obvious counterexamples such as "Crossfire" and, well, Fox, notwithstanding) often face the argument that their establishment rules just aren't much fun for outsiders, who move onto the Web. The mainstream saw this happening and countered with free-for-all fight shows that "hurt America," to quote good old Jon.
I guess what I'm wondering is if whether Kos' behavior was necessarily out of line for a medium such as the Internet, or was he just finally stooping to a level he'd been lucky to avoid so far.
You are right, that some are attracted to blogging because of their ability to attack those they disagree with. But, this does not apply to all of those who currently are involved, or will be, with blogging (reading or writing).
I would say that in order to spread blogging to a greater amount of the population, the mainstream/popular bloggers (such as Kos) need to be weary of resorting to that level in order to avoid giving blogs a bad name.
By bad name, I mean a medium that does not warrent its attacks on fact/logic, but instead on a person. Outside the beltway, many are not as in favor of such personal attacks.
Sure, blogging could still expand greatly if personal attacks became the norm. But, this would undermine the credability of blogging as a believable, accurate source of information.
So, I guess it really depends on how you see blogs evolving. If you want blogs, in general, to be credible and a new type of media outlet, I would say Kos' behvaior was out of line for a major blog that would otherwise be fairly trustworthy.
On a related note: I'm finding that many blog comments are just silly inside jokes between members. Sometimes I almost feel as if saying something substantive isn't appropriate.
I agree in your analysis if Kos' behavior towards Carol Darr; however, when discussing Sensenbrenner's actions, remember that Demcrats have resorted to such tactics when they have not agreeed with their opponents. I seem to remembers a groups of Texas Democrats crossing state lines in order to illustrate their disagreements. Sensenbrenner left a room, these people left the state.
Though, Sensenbrenner was presiding over official congressional testimony. Testimony considering passing the Patriot Act, a significant piece of legislation--and an Act with enourmous consequences to the American people (both for security reasons and civil liberties)
If you take away the committees ability to listen to all sides (or even the two major sides), how can any information coming from that committee, or even the House or Senate floors, be considered accurate and representative of fact? Particularly if all facts and information was not submitted for the record because the presiding officer stepped out and ended the hearing.
Post a Comment
<< Home