The most Popular Posts of the past seven days.

Jun 8, 2009

MMMM #45 - A Letter from The Mayor

I already posted about my dislike for the comments section that follow each story on almost all newspapers these days. I still wonder what was wrong with the letters to the editor comments that kept the dialogue on an even civilized keel? Today's Montgomery Advertiser has a letter to The Editor from the Capitol City's mayor, Todd Strange! Yes, I know he's a citizen too, but the paper must be hard up publishing the letter of someone who clearly already had complete access to the media. All Mayor Strange has to do it call a news conference and, presuming he truly has something to say, voila! He's on TV and in the papers. Let the average Joe try that! If Mayor Strange wants access, why not write an "Op-Ed" piece and submit it, making room in the Letters To The Editor section for a regular citizen with something to say. Oddly enough, the Mayor's missive isn't included in the online "Opinion" Section of today's paper. In the print edition, it is on page 5c. [NOTE: In The Washington Post, Howard Kurtz on the crossing of some traditional firm journalistic lines in the "new-media" environment.]

9 comments:

  1. Tim,

    Is it possible your inability to understand the "new media" is the real reason you are no longer a member of the "old media?" You may just want to mull this over a while before you respond.

    Consider carefully the gatekeeper function you value so highly. What qualifies you or anyone else to discard some opinions while deciding to air/print others. Who made you the decider of what is acceptable and what is beyond the pale of reasonable opinion? Who shall judge the judges?

    Also, with the cost of airtime and print so high, why exactly do you begrudge opinion expressed in bits and bytes which are effectively free for both writer and reader?

    Do you think your antipathy toward the unwashed masses expressing themselves, however inartfully, could be a reaction to your own obsolescence as a gatekeeping voice of conventional wisdom and liberal orthodoxy? Harder questions to ask of oneself than to answer, perhaps.

    williakz

    ReplyDelete
  2. The irony here is stunning. On this blog I intentionally allow all (non-spam) comments...including this one from you as a virtually nameless visitor. And yet you use that platform to attack me for defending(and encouraging)the right of a publisher to limit comments on their site.Would you allow them to limit ANY comment? Should they allow defamatory comments? Pornographic comments? Would you argue magazines should publish every letter they receive?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Williakz--

    Your rudeness is exceeded only by your rudeness.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What attack?

    What are you talking about, Tim? I simply asked whether you have fully thought out the democratization of opinion over the last decade or so.

    I do not believe you have considered the matter at all beyond a very superficial level.
    Rather, you have consistently and at length complained and snarked about what YOU consider the rise of unacceptable opinion. Further, you charge the gatekeepers with dereliction of duty rather than take issue with the opinions themselves.

    Again I ask, WHO made you the judge of what opinion deserves to be heard? Why are gatekeepers required when the cost of publishing opinion is neglible? When precious resources are required to publish or air the thoughts of readers, viewers or listeners, I can understand a gatekeeping function, but those constraints have been removed by technology. Why is gatekeeping necessary anymore?

    If you wish to assert that a censorship function is a beneficial aspect of the gatekeeping of old, I am willing to entertain your argument. But, you have chosen NOT to so assert. Rather, you squish around the central issue of censorship and "approved" opinion. That is not the position of someone with something to say.

    Make up your mind about what you wish to say: THEN SAY IT! (It also helps if you offer an opinion rather than an attack)

    williakz

    ReplyDelete
  5. Williakz--

    If you don't like Tim's blogs, you don't have to read them. You don't have to log on here.

    There are thousands of other blogsites where you can go. For example, I'm sure that Rush Limbaugh has one (or more.)

    I happen to be a fan of Mr. Lennox. He is head, shoulders and ankles above your imperious attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jay,

    If you wish to address my arguments instead of hurling invective at me, do so. Otherwise, responding in kind, STFU.

    williakz

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow! What an exchange! Whew!

    Lemme' put on my hip waders 'fore I march into this 'un.

    I recall the comments of a fellow whom crafted a term in a LTE (Letter To Editor) some years ago in which he styled modern teevee "news" talk shows as the "Jerry Springer School of Journalism," wherein the respondents yap at each other, while adding nothing of substance to the issue at hand.

    Immediately, I understood precisely what he meant.

    Increasingly, we see this "unwashed" demagoguery parading before us on our one-eyed monsters with the "gatekeeper" hosts inviting straw man guests whom they berate or others with whom they celebrate a orgiastic "agree-with-me" fest. Though it's called "new media," it's actually old hat.

    Yes, gross ignorance and rudeness does seem to be quite the style, not only on teevee, but on the Internet as well. However, perhaps those whom pander to the ignorant are worse, because they neither encourage objectivity nor higher education among their audience to understand increasingly complex issues. Thus, they're complicit as virtual slave masters whose strength rests upon the weak minds and wills of others.

    Everything old is new again. There's nothing new under the sun.

    It's one reason in part - albeit, in my opinion, a significantly large one - why I choose not to view them.

    With the advent of digital broadcasting, power companies everywhere are singing the blues.

    Why? It costs significantly less to broadcast digitally.

    While I was in the San Joaquin Valley, I made some wonderful friends. Among them was a highly respected Television Broadcast Engineer. We shared common interest in Amateur Radio, among other areas. As is sometimes the case, one engineer has many broadcast clients. Such was the case with this gentleman. He shared with me that one Fresno teevee station had a monthly electricity bill for analogue broadcast that frequently exceeded $30,000. He said that PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) will be taking a huge revenue hit, and all television broadcast outlets in the SJV had already gone digital well early of the federally mandated deadline.

    While modern digital technology makes great promises, the seeming ubiquity of the Internet frequently serves to amplify our own human frailties and inherent weaknesses.

    Liberality - as I have studied the word - is not evil. Etymologically, it stems from the Latin and means "free." In fact, this nation's ideals of individual "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are liberal in the extreme by comparison to the existing governing standards of the world at that time, and in the world today.

    Yet freedom is dangerous, because it carries inherent risks with it. But we esteem these acceptable risks, because we value freedom more.

    However "democratization" quickly leads to anarchy, thus, we the people realize that we need structure and governance. Even online sources use "gatekeepers" and for the greatest part prohibit obscene language or other inappropriate invectives.

    Increasing access to media by "the unwashed masses expressing themselves, however inartfully," DOES carry risks, yet there are also responsibilities - which some willingly shirk - because they want to be "the decider of what is acceptable and what is beyond the pale of reasonable opinion," and sense no responsibility to others, and indeed have none.

    Even hate groups use some form of Roberts Rules of Order. Why?

    Establishing hierarchical structure - governance, if you prefer - allows order out of chaos. Every game has rules. Those whom choose to willingly ignore them, are kicked out of the game, and justly ostracized.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kevin,

    Your analysis has several problems. First, you abuse my words to service your points. This practice is contemptible. MY words are MINE; use your own to make your argument. The meaning of modern liberalism is clearly understood by most; your feeble attempt to redefine it by defining it on terms favorable to your point of view is juvenile. You only make a fool of yourself by arguing against my points by bending the clear meaning of words as I originally used them. Stop it.

    Second, you tend to fly off into irrelevancies that are not germane to the discussion at hand. Your posts would be cleaner, clearer, and more readable without such excursions. Stop them.

    Finally, you skirt the main point of my argument by pointing up the need for gatekeepers to keep out the profane and maintain order. I, however, am pointedly interested in the culling of uncomfortable or inconvenient opinion by gatekeepers such as Mr. Lennox, not their function in keeping f-bombs or nutcases off their sites. You make a law-and-order must be preserved argument against the disruptive influences generally found on the internet. You, a student of history, should understand the fallacy of placing process over substance in this manner. Civil rights injustices, Vietnam War atrocities, and CIA abuses were all justified by the need for law and order. Your argument is silly. Get serious.

    And a niggle...

    Who and whom. Who replaces subjects; whom replaces objects. When you are deciding which of the two to use, simply determine whether the person being referred to is a subject (if so, use "who") or an object (if so, use "whom".) Your prose will again gain in readability. I cannot help you in making convincing arguments based on poor premises. You will have to deal with that problem all by yourself.

    williakz

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would be curious to know what expression of Tim's you found as an "uncomfortable or inconvenient opinion."

    Concerning "keeping f-bombs or nutcases off their sites," in a previous reply, on June 8, 2009 8:00 PM you wrote to a guest on this blog to "STFU."

    Would such an example be sufficient in the case which you identified?

    I would imagine, that is, it seems to me that Tim's disdain "for the comments section that follow each story on almost all newspapers these days" are expressive of the lack of oversight which apparently exists, and which formerly "kept the dialogue on an even civilized keel." You also, I presume, agree with that precept.

    Such commentary to which he refers is frequently - as I previously wrote - reminiscent of "the Jerry Springer School of Journalism," wherein the respondents yap at each other, while adding nothing of substance to the issue at hand."

    Debate in the classical sense - at least in the highest, or Oxford tradition - the issue, proposition or resolution is the case, with the first respondent stating the case (taking the affirmative), while the respondent negates it.

    Any issue in the news would be the proposition, however, the respondents are not always civil in tone, nor do they always appeal to the intellect or higher passions. The distress in such online formats (and with which I concur with Tim) is name-calling, and unwarranted statements. Granted that one can, and does overlook the sometimes frequent grammatical errors (thank you for pointing out mine, I've had difficulty at times with who and whom - I miss James Kilpatrick!), and lack of proper style, it is possible to understand the idea the respondent hopes to convey.

    To do so is quite well, while to lambast with acerbic vitriol is frequently borderline, and not well tolerated because it often goes beyond criticism of ideals and ventures into the land of personality... a strict no-no. Criticize actions, not people or one's personhood. I differentiate between harsh criticism and sarcastic irony, which I on occasion have used. Yet I too, on occasion, have been guilty of harsh criticism of others.

    And, as I read Tim's entry, his point - as I understand it - was that the mayor ventured into the fray of the "new media," by "someone who clearly already had complete access to the media. All Mayor Strange has to do it call a news conference and, presuming he truly has something to say, voila! He's on TV and in the papers."

    Perhaps Tim's observation could be phrased as a question, to wit, "why would the mayor choose to write something online, when he could get radio, teevee, and print media to his office with one phone call?"

    And along that line of thought, could it be that perhaps in some fashion the mayor thinks he's being misrepresented or pseudo-censored by those whom report the goings-on at City Hall? Might that be a possible reason why Mr. Strange chose that venue?

    Again, Tim's observation in the form of a question, vis-a-vis, "why not write an "Op-Ed" piece and submit it," touches upon that issue quite well, albeit if somewhat obliquely.

    ReplyDelete