Tuesday, February 13, 2007
On Blogs and Petitions
There have been some rancorous British blog wars recently. Iain Dale has been abused, Guido has been outed as Paul Staines and the Westminster wonks with their curiously deformed hindquarters have been having fun. This is entertaining but lacks depth. Current American blog wars are, however, gripping. Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog was taken on by Democrat contender John Edwards. I posted on this earlier. Both Marcotte and another blogger, Melissa McEwan were then savagely attacked by the right as being anti-Catholic. 'Vulgar, trash-talking bigots,' said Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. Other Catholics dissociated themselves from these attacks, but the damage seems to have been done. Marcotte has now announced her resignation from the Edwards campaign. She had, indeed, been critical of the Catholic Church. The terms of her attacks were, in blog terms, unremarkable. (And, I should add, very badly written. Why do so many American bloggers ramble interminably? British political blogs may be less momentous, but at least they are usually kept short.) But, in the arena of mainstream politics and media, Marcotte's views were unacceptable. Edwards miscalculated. Blogs, he thought, are groovy, so let's get the bloggers on board. But the old mainstream still has a functioning immune system and the bloggers have been rejected. Old, big battalion democracy and new individualised, technophile democracy don't mix. Something similar has happened here with the government's embarrassment over the online road pricing petition. Letting the people speak - through blogs or petitions - seems like a good idea but can it ever work?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A blog about, among other things, imaginary ideas - What ifs? and Imagine thats. What if photographs looked nothing like what we see with our eyes? Imagine that the Berlin Wall had never come down. What if we were the punchline of an interminable joke? All contributions welcome.
Yes, Bryan, for every million that oppose road pricing there are many more million who would pay themselves for more peace and quiet on the roads or anywhere else. One thing you can say about petitions -- far more people don't like signing them than the numbers that do, whatever the question. I hope those gov people can work that out.
ReplyDeleteOh dear. What is all the fuss about? I can't believe someone could be so upset at being called a nihilist. Give me a break. That guy needs therapy.
ReplyDeleteOh and I meant to say that the time marker on these posts is wrong. It always shows me posting an hour earlier than I actually do. Perhaps I am a grandee after all.
ReplyDeleteIt is not appropriate to categosise Pandagon's comments on the Catholic Church as mere "criticism". They are outright abusive, verging on hate-speech. I don't think you have to be a Catholic to believe that such comments have no place in mainstream political discourse
ReplyDeleteI can't see how politicians can safely enlist bloggers. Or interesting bloggers anyway. Political parties work by focus group and inoffensive blandness, which, given that there are so many more people you can offend these days, makes life difficult. A politician can't utter anything without it first going through the Party Line machine, at the end of which it is, as (I think) Martin Amis put it: "at the cutting edge of the uncontroversial".
ReplyDeleteBloggers work in precisely the opposite direction, relying on spiky individualism. Alan Clark would have been a great blogger.
As for the blog wars, this is just human nature: it all eats itself and then turns into Celebrity Big Brother (as indeed did Big Brother itself, which started out as a pseudo-serious experiment).
You're right, Anon, the anti-Catholic comments were savage. But, within the blogosphere, not unusual, which is sort of my point. Today, I note, Pandagon has been shut down, flooded as they put it by 'asshat spammers'. Strange.
ReplyDeleteThere is clearly a problem with bloggers joining US presidential campaigns to wrack up their portfolio earnings. It indicates that the candidate is endorsing all the bloggers' views, just as the blogger is implicitly endorsing that candidate. Any other interpretation seems too fancy. No US candidate in their right mind would or should antagonise the largest single denomination in the US (Roman Catholics), who- as it happens- are far more politically pluralistic than their Evangelical equivalents even though one hears less about them. Apropos US elections, its going to be Rudi all the way, preferably with Condi as running mate. Obama is a busted flush after his crazy remarks about withdrawl from Iraq. Grandee? Huh? There is the matter of that clock programme that gives the appearance of the pre-dawn blogging when one knows that the blogger is in dreamland.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Marcotte was not just offensive about Catholics (and offensive was just about all she was). She also took heat for remarks like this, about the Duke University rape allegations: "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair." The rape charges have since been dropped, but Marcotte had no problem assuming the players were guilty - and assuming much else besides. Marcotte is one of those who thinks her shrillness demonstrates her authenticity. Why do so many American bloggers ramble interminably, Bryan? Because they don't know how to write. Shorter is harder.
ReplyDelete