Do blog posts swirl left or right?
Posted: January 31, 2012 Filed under: Politics 1 Comment »Recently there’s been a lot of discussion about the relevance of blogs. What purpose do they serve? Who’s actually paying attention? Are they a form of journalism or creative writing?
So I decided to tool around a bit, and came across a blogger’s post that included a video of a person making a statement about a situation. The blogger misquotes what the person said in the video, then misinterprets the person’s remarks in the same post.
In essence, the blogger bashes the person in the video for saying something he didn’t say, or even imply. Now my question is this: Why would a blogger post a video that he obviously didn’t watch, then bash the person for something he didn’t say?
Then when someone calls him on it in a comment, the blogger tries to explain away the faux pas with gibberish. (Pass the aspirin please.) This is a typical scenario that plays out ad nauseum all over the internet every minute of every day.
Generally speaking, with all the distortion, are blogs even relevant as news sources? Is it a waste of time for news seekers to follow blogs?
Although many blog posts are useful, an increasingly vast number can be relied on only as a means of personal expression. In fact, feel free to flush …
George DeLuca produces ComeToLowell.com
Maybe.
Blogs are free expression. They are a flowing of writing and that is in keeping with New England’s traditions. There are gadflies and that is in keeping with New England’s traditions. There are thoughtful pieces, often wrong, and that is in keeping with New England’s traditions.
I like the person on the video clip. That said, he was pushing it. The “no apology” thing may well be true—I have heard it before. The implication that the victim was wrong to sue is wrong. Often we police the police with the court system. Being a policeman is hard. The right “on the spot decision” and you are an unsung hero. The wrong one and you are a goat. And, it is all about people.
To me it was pretty clear that the gentleman in the clip went a little far is describing the action. Worse, he went way too far in suggesting that suing the City was wrong. To shift the scene, in New York City the Mayor recently accused a woman from one of the fly-over states of having cocaine in her pocket—it was aspirin. Of course, he was trying to justify applying the despicable Sullivan Statute to her when she saw a sign that said no guns beyond this point and voluntarily turned over her gun, which her home state licensed her to carry. A hundred dollar fine for being stupid might be in order, but not years in prison. Who wins there?
Let the blogging flow freely and let the readers read what they will. Live the First Amendment.
Regards — Cliff