Blogs "flirting with legitimacy?"
Just as there are many ice cream flavors, there are many ways to view the means and ends of the way things work in American society. Some people, groups, factions, private and public interests, and politicians view the internet and its uses as a beneficial and positive addition to American as well as "global society"; others are leery as to the direction of the various uses of the internet are taking, and see specific parallels between past technological integration and the one taking place today as the internet becomes more and more a part of our daily lives.
There is a school of academics, including Chomsky whom I will cite here, that aren't afraid of the internet, they are interested instead of who will control the internet.
Chomsky's argument basically compares what happened in the US to radio and TV when they were first introduced to the masses and with what happened in Europe when radio and TV were introduced. Unlike in Europe, where these technologies were treated as a public good that at least had part public ownership, radio and TV were made into a privately owned institution.
Who the hell cares? (I just found out that I am allowed to curse on my blog)
Well, this is at close look a delicate situation, because although the radio and TV broadcasting business is a private profit run industry, we can still watch TV and listen to radio for free, so it seems public. I mean, although the Steelers are a privately owned public entertainment organization, I still have to pay for a ticket to see it. Unless I want to watch it on the TV for free.
What this means of course depends on what your favorite flavor of ice cream is. Some would say that this is a perfect marriage made in the free market, that this is the natural way that businesses are run. But then others would say that you only have a choice (even if you pay for TV service) of what you're given (which is actually out of your control). What you make of all this is of course your opinion, but lets take blogs as an example and whats happening right now with them in the legal world.
In the Pittsburgh Post Gazette today (Oct. 4th), there is an article in the Business section on the "legitimacy" of blogging. Again, it depends on your favorite flavor of the definition of "legitimate" in this case, but there are people out there who think that blogging shouldnt be set up the way it is right now. A blogger in Massachusetts is involved in a court case that is attempting to see his blog "banned" from the internet, but not because of what his blog actually says. This persons blog, as the plaintiffs allege, should be banned because of what his blog says is making others others do. Sound weird? Well, its as if someone is saying that I can say what I want, but if what I say makes other people do something that someone doesn't like, then I shouldn't be allowed to say certain things. What do you think this means?
Again, your opinion is your opinion, but the plaintiffs add that if this case succeeds in scrapping this guys blog and other "insurgent" blogs out there, then blogging will be "on the road to legitimacy". What does this do for your definition and idea of what "legitimate" is?
posted by Jason @ 2:23 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have FREE leads for your business. Hey, these are free for the asking. All you need to do is visit my website.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
But the internet is not television or radio. It is not regulated by a small regime of appointees to distribute its limited scope to private companies operating in the public interest.
The internet is largely public and largely multinational. Some can argue that it is in fact controlled by the us, but the reality of it is that the internet is inherently distributed and information on the internet can make its way around regardless of federal or even private regulation. Private and government interests may seek to hide the larger internet from most people, but the rest remains- unlike television or radio where the only unlicensed broadcasters are quickly arrested or fined.
Television and radio are broadcast on the public airwaves by the way. They are licensed by the FCC of course, and there are reasons beyond commmercial interest that the FCC was set up as it is, but it is important that in as far as actual over the air broadcast television is concerned, the public has a vested interest in what is broadcast and how it is done so.
I don't have today's Post gazette so I can't really comment on the article itself, but I'm not sure what the case is about- the old "TV made me kill people, Grand theft auto made me kill people, movies made me kill people" argument? As irrational and unprovable as ever. Banned from what exactly? What governing body will remove it? What is to stop someone from mirroring the contents of the site?
This argument about legitimacy is largely moot. Blogs at this point are not yet a trusted source of public discourse. Whether or not they become one will depend not on whether or not they are banned, but whether a "trust" system is created that allows users to judge the usefulness of the blog. These systems are already being developed- tagging, social bookmarking etc. Another big problem that has already got its foot in the door is the internet removing the notion of legitimacy from traditional media.
I am using the term legitimacy here in the sense of credibility in the eyes of the larger public.
Free Blog Hosting Using Wordpress Blog Software At www.Blogsilla..com
Post a Comment
<< Home