So on the one hand I'm super excited that I noticed this connection/contradiction first.
On the other, I'm baffled by what went on today over at the Ladyblog, but am glad things seem to be cleared up, and that the post taken down has been returned. (I will once again plead ignorance on the subject of 'the hook-up culture' and of the broader one, 'young people today', because, well...)
In terms of what I took from the controversy (that is, when not turning in grades or rewarding myself with a cappuccino and scarf on sale at Uniqlo, which, by the way, should totally sponsor this blog for the amount I mention it; I did not, it seems, devote the entire day to blogging and thinking about bloggery) is as follows: I think it's important a) to acknowledge that publications have political slants, b) for there to be dissenting views within the pages of those sources, to avoid echo-chamberism and whatnot, and c) for the 'token' dissenters to be respectful of the overall stance of the publication. By respectful I don't just mean not throwing slurs, but it helps to have a certain amount of sympathy for at least some views on the other side. Case in point. Which is kind of how I see myself at the Ladyblog, and how I see myself when writing in a liberal context, too. Being a political moderate, or a political all-over-the-place (but no, not like this!), that's pretty much the way to go.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Can a blog have a navel?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow...that dustup at labyblog was pretty silly. It made me laugh, mostly because there were so many self-righteous people, but it didn't do much for whatever professional image they might be trying to project.
While I don't disagree with view about biased publications and the role of dissenters in them (especially to tether the more excitable ones to reality), I do have a question. How does what you took away from the controversy apply to Alan Colmes in Hannity and Colmes? Or, phrased more directly, if you have a disgusting and repulsive media outlet, is it better to have a voice from the other side, avoid it altogether, or something else?
Obviously I don't consider Culture11 a "disgusting and repulsive media outlet," and I don't have cable (this is on cable, right), so I couldn't really say that this gave me new insights on the matter.
Look, there are sites/networks/mags that go in for ranting/raving, and then there are those that attempt civility. Not neutrality but tolerance, respect, calmly-voiced opinion rather than preaching-to-the-choir outrage. There's a place for all these outlets. But once one based on outrage can't, by definition, allow opposing viewpoints, even calm, respectful ones.
Thanks for the response--it gives me something to think about. And I'm sorry for not being more clear, but I didn't intend to imply that Culture11 is a disgusting and repulsive media outlet. I was just thinking about your post in the abstract and how it might apply to situations where the token voice just legitimized something that was meant to solidify existing prejudices instead of inform opinions and sharpen arguments. It was just an academic question, and no offense was intended.
Post a Comment