|
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Saturday, October 29, 2005
started 10/29/2005; 5:50:12 PM - last post 10/29/2005; 5:50:12 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Saturday, October 29, 2005 
10/29/2005; 9:50:12 PM (reads: 4424, responses: 0)
|
|
Loose links 
| | Is the metaphor of nation as family an inescapable, essential one, or is it just the one that¹s dominated our discourse for the last few decades (or, perhaps, centuries?) It makes me uncomfortable that the two models he outlines would map so neatly to the two parties that dominate American politics. If the family metaphor, and the two perspectives on family he articulates are somehow essential, does it neccesarily imply oppositional, two party politics? Is politics neccesarily binary? (Lakoff stated that 35-40% of Americans are progressives, 35-40% are conservatives, and the remaining 20-30% are some of each - sounds pretty binary to me.)... |
| | My second set of concerns has to do with my contention that Lakoff¹s focus is more tactical than substantial. He was very careful to state that people were misinterpreting him when they asked for slogans to sell existing policies - his point is that we need to communicate our deep frame, our progressive values, rather than just selling policies. But while I¹m much more comfortable with the progressive value frame over the conservative value frame, I¹m not convinced that either camp has the right answers to complex questions like the ones raised in my previous post (How do we help Africa simultaneously develop economically while maintaining a functioning health system, and address the issue of a nursing and doctor shortage in rural America?) |
| | There's much more there. Read the whole thing. |
| | [Later...] The headline survives from an eariler post that had more links in it, now lost. O well. |
Finding the gray
| | A common theme in the responses is that Lyons is "damn[ing] all bloggers for the sins of the few," as Doc Searls (in an otherwise balanced response) puts it. That's a misrepresentation. Lyons specifically writes that "attack blogs are but a sliver of the rapidly expanding blogosphere." (He does go on to argue that the problem extends beyond the bad actors themselves - scurrilous or one-sided attacks are naturally amplified in the blogosphere's vast echo chamber - but that's a valid point.) The fact is, in the context of the article's argument, it's clear that references to "blogs" and "blogging" are references to the attack blogs that are the subject of the piece, not to all blogs or bloggers. |
| | Lyons's article isn't beyond criticism. His rhetoric does get overheated at times, and he can stretch too far in trying to make his points as pointed as possible. But those are hardly hanging offenses in magazine writing, and in the "citizen journalism" of the blogosphere they're as commonplace as typos. In rushing to dismiss the article, the blogosphere is simply exposing another of its shortcomings: It can dish it out, but it can't take it. |
| | Sure we can take it. We're just not going to be silent about something that defames the many for the sins of the few. Which Dan's piece did. And which sensationalism always does. |
| | That said, we also need to face the fact that some of the blogosphere (and it's more than a "sliver," I would submit — David Sifry of Technorati reports that close to 6% or more of new blogs are splogs) is a slum. That's the case with both splogs and attack bloggers, which are smaller in number than splogs but comprised of human beings (rather than robotic programs) practicing real offenses against other human beings. |
| | Once again, if we don't want lawmakers stepping in to "correct" a problem by making life harder for everybody, we need to pay the same level of attention to the problem that Dan Lyons has. That's what the Long Tail is here for. Let's use it. |
| | Also, it's just as important to look for the truth behind the things that offend us as it is to look at the offense itself. In fact, it might be more important. Because it's not always black vs. white. Or black vs. black. Even in arguments between pots and kettles. |
| | [Later...] Ed Cone reports... (well, I can't copy and paste here because Ed's whole blog looks like one big link)... that Forbes insiders on the Forbes on Fox TV show dissed Dan Lyons' piece (though there were some defenders). Ed adds, "Again, the germ of a serious story is there: companies need to be aware of blog-borne-attcks." |
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
