February 15, 2005
Jeff Jarvis on who the Press works for...
Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine attacks correctly the notion that the Press knows more and needs to control the stories that get published - especially when these stories might be about important news media executives speaking at Davos ---
- The head isn't the journalists. The head isn't the politicians. The head is the people.
We work for the public. We serve the public. The public is our boss. Remember?
If you don't believe the public is capable of that -- if you don't believe in the wisdom of the crowd -- then (I've said it before and, be warned, I'll say it again) you don't believe in democracy or free markets or reformed religion or art. If you think you're smarter and better than the people, you set yourself up for a fall -- especially today, when the people own the press.
I believe this absolutely. Which is why I'm in favor of democracy.
Posted by rakhier at 10:01 AM | Comments (0)
Volokh - Bloggers are a Persuasion Bunch
This mini-essay by Eugene Volokh is a must read on why Bloggers are not and cannot be called a "lynch mob" ---
- Now I realize that "lynch mob" is figurative, and hyperbole at that. Still, figurative references and analogies (even hyperbolic ones) only make sense to the extent that the analogy is apt -- to the extent that the figurative usage, while literally false, reflects a deeper truth.
The trouble is that here the analogy is extremely weak. What's wrong with lynch mobs? It's that the mob itself has the power to kill. They could be completely wrong, and entirely unpersuasive to reasonable people or to the rest of the public. Yet by their physical power, they can impose their will without regard to the law.
But bloggers, or critics generally, have power only to the extent that they are persuasive. Jordan's resignation didn't come because he was afraid that bloggers will fire him. They can't fire him. I assume that to the extent the bloggers' speech led him to resign, it did so by persuading the public that he wasn't trustworthy.
So Jordan's critics (bloggers or not) aren't a lynch mob: If they're a mob, they're at most a "persuasion mob." What's more, since they're generally a very small group, they're really a "persuasion bunch."
Maybe if a persuasion bunch tries to persuade people by using factual falsehoods, they could be faulted on those grounds (though that too has little to do with lynch mobs). But I've seen no evidence that their criticisms were factually unfounded, or that Jordan quit because of any factual errors in the criticisms. (Plus presumably releasing the video of the panel would have been the best way to fight the factual errors.)
We should love persuasion bunches, who operate through peaceful persuasion, while hating lynch mobs, who operate through violence and coercion. What's more, journalists -- to the extent that they love the First Amendment's premise that broad public debate helps discover the truth, and improve society -- ought to love persuasion bunches, too. When the only power you wield is the power to speak, and persuade others through the force of your arguments (and not through the force of your guns, clubs, or fists), that's just fine. Come to think of it, isn't that the power that opinion journalists themselves wield?
In any of event, figurative usages and analogies are good when they help us engage in clear thinking. Unsound analogies lead to muddled thinking -- and, come to think of it, they usually flow from muddled thinking, too.
Hear hear!
Posted by rakhier at 09:56 AM | Comments (0)