Big Groups of Stupid People
Jim over at Serotoninrain links to an article in Forbes entitled "Attack of the Blogs" [free registration required] in which is described a few instances where groups of bloggers joined forces to harass people with whom they didn't agree. The author extrapolates from those examples that bloggers comprise a formidable lynch mob. Here's the overblown intro:
Jim takes significant umbrage at the charges leveled in the article, and points out that he's not the only one. It will be interesting to follow this in the blogosphere to see if the article was actually designed to elicit the kind of reaction it describes. It's certainly starting out that way.
Forbes does seem to be making the same mistake that the anti-gun lobby insists on repeating, and that's to blame an object for its misuse. Forbes even goes so far as to blame the "manufacturers" (blog-enablers like Google and Yahoo, in this case), much as anti-gun forces target Colt, Smith & Wesson, et al.
The article reminds me a bit of C.S. Lewis' quote about the devil: be careful not to attribute to him too little power...or too much.
But before the blogosphere goes all medieval on Forbes self-exposed backside, it might be helpful to do some self-examination to see if it's as squeaky clean as it will no doubt claim that it is.
There's a popular bumper sticker that reads "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." The blogosphere is a growing microcosm of society; society as a whole contains a fair number of people who do stupid, illegal, immoral and detestable things. Why do we think the blogging population won't sometimes exhibit those same behaviors? Does the ability to type somehow confer a superior set of ethics and wisdom? (See also Shakespeare, Monkeys and.)
If there's one thing in the article that I agree with, it's that the ability to be anonymous will be abused by bloggers. Not could be; not potentially...it's a fact that has been demonstrated in the past and will continue to be the Achille's Heel of this medium. The very thing that liberates also drags it down. Until people are willing to step up and be personally accountable for what they write about other people, we'll continue to see abuse and allegations of abuse in this regard.
And spare me the lectures about how anonymity is essential for true freedom of speech in cases of corporate whistleblowing or dictatorships. Using those legitimate examples to argue that hidden identities must be protected for all use simply demeans those who really need it...and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who falls into which category.
There'll be plenty of others who do an excellent line-by-line fisking of the Forbes article (and there are several outrageous claims to be debunked), and the blogosphere as a whole will walk away both unscathed and proud of how it defended itself. It's too bad that a poorly researched and written article provides an excuse for ignoring the kernel of truth that's hidden inside.
Fortunately, the bloggers whose work I regularly read and respect will be unsullied by both the article's claims and the truth behind some of them, and I salute them for that.
Technorati tags: Forbes | "Attack of the Blogs"
Don't make me sic my crack team of lawyers ... or is that "team of lawyers on crack"? ... on you...
Of course, your IP address is always a dead giveaway! ;-)
Posted by: Eric at October 28, 2005 02:19 PMEric,
Thanks. That was the kind of even handed and honest approach that Forbes could have and should have chosen.
As with individuals, so with groups: it's very hard to draw hard and fast conclusions and paint vivid and accurate characterizations good or bad. This is exactly what the article attempted to do and I'm not surprised that blog writers are reacting to it.
I look down my blogroll (poor statistical sample that it is) and simply scratch my head. It wasn't that hard for me to find blogs worthy of reading with ideas thoughtfully expressed (even when they're not in line with my own views). I don't understand why Forbes chose not to take the time to do such a relatviely easy bit of research.
Maybe it was all just to create a stir. I'm sure it will drive sales.
Okay, onward. I now have much more important things to attend to, as my next post will show.
Peace.
Posted by: Jim at October 28, 2005 03:47 PMThanks, Jim. After re-reading what I wrote, I don't think I managed to say what I intended, but it will have to do.
I'm looking forward to your life-changing post...
Posted by: Eric at October 28, 2005 04:24 PMWell, what it does say is pretty good, and articulate too. And has the added advantage of being, to my mind, correct.
Posted by: Jim at October 28, 2005 04:44 PMMaybe so, but nothing rhymes and it's hard to dance to. I hate it when that happens.
Posted by: Eric at October 28, 2005 04:46 PMMy blog buddies outshine Forbes crappy old stuff any day.
Posted by: Cowtown Pattie at October 28, 2005 06:22 PMEric, sorry I've not been by to visit very much ... sometimes, the real world intrudes upon the virtual world that way ... which is also why my own, tiny corner of the blogosphere has been totally devoid of activity in recent weeks ...
There is so much you have written in this post, that is deserving of extended and deep discussion ... consideration of which would make for better bloggers ... and better journalists, in general ...
The matter of anonymity especially stood out ... it is something that challenges reporters and editors on an almost daily basis ... especially in the major markets, where hardly a daypart goes by without another report citing someone who wishes to remain anonymous ...
Sometimes, that's good ... and, sometimes, that's bad ... when a reporter presents a piece that includes some degree of anonymity in its sources - and an editor must decide on whether or not that piece is publsihed - there are some serious considerations to take into account ...
But that's different from the anonymity that some writers - reporter, letter-to-the-editor- writer, blogger, whatever - try to employ when they 'go to press' ... more often than not, there is something or someone they want to take a shot at, but they don't want to be identified as the finger on the trigger ...
And, boy, do they get mad when you don't provide them the forum for their shots!
In a couple of paragraphs of your post, you have illustrated - much better than I could - the dearth of morality to be found in the arguments presented by these anony-misses and -misters ... not to mention the negative effects of their practice ...
Writing something that gets people mad is easy ... putting your byline to it is more difficult, and requires some degree of courage ...
Pattie, you do have to acknowledge the sheer entertainment value of the Forbes article...although I'm pretty sure that's not what they were going for.
Jeff, I figured you've been pretty busy with real life...we've missed you. Thanks for weighing in on this. You've got more "hands-on" experience with these issues than the rest of us combined.
Posted by: Eric at October 28, 2005 08:39 PMAs you may have noticed on my blog recently, I am in agreement on the problem of anonymity. I, of course, only addressed it in the arene of comments on blogs, but the concept is still the same.
Put your name to it. If you can't write something without your name on it, it's possibly a good sign you shouldn't be writing it all - that's my opinion.
Posted by: Julie at October 29, 2005 10:13 PMYeah, but do we really know who you are? ;-)
Posted by: Eric at October 29, 2005 10:23 PMAbout the publisher
Random Abbye photos...
Random Thursday: The Abbreviated Tuesday Political Edition
More rattler than meets the eye
Poop happens. And then disappears.
How the West was Won
Beware of Vampire Dog
Tieing? There's no tieing in gymnastics!
NBC Bungles Web Video
Random Thursday: The Monday Olympics Edition
On Holiday
Random Thursday
Chair Play
Book Review: "The Road"
Education is paramount. Well, next to jet skiing.
Warbirds, Old and New
The Neighborhood:
West Texas Blogs:
[Midland unless otherwise indicated]
Other Texas Blogs:
The Business:
The Church:
The World:
Oh Hooey!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 28, 2005 02:14 PM:>]