|
July 3, 2003
I've noticed a tendency amongst Oz bloggers and their readers to stick to their own political circles. Some do cross the horizon and argue with the other side, but by and large they are content to inhabit their own circle. And when they do cross it is more a hit and run attack than an argument.
So I was interested to read this by Eugene Volokh:
"I think it's a mistake to demand that bloggers be evenhanded in their criticism. Blogging is something that people do for fun. It has to compete with other things -- family, work, reading, sleep. And usually it's more fun to criticize your adversaries than to criticize your friends. I wish this weren't so, but I think that (at least for most people) it is. Sometimes one might do it out of a sense of duty, a feeling that people in each movement should police their own .... Blogging about something -- taking time out of one's day to write something for free -- shouldn't be seen as an obligation. And while I expect each post to be accurate and fair to its subject, I don't expect bloggers to be evenhanded in their choices of which subjects to harp on."
You can on what on what you will and there is obligation to be evenhanded in one's criticism. Daniel Drezner (permalinks screwed, Tuesday June 24, 3.12pm) disagrees. He says that:
"....for scholar-bloggers, I don't think it's that easy to dismiss the notion of obligation altogether. This doesn't affect the choice of what scholar-bloggers write about (Eugene's point), but it should affect the content of their posts. No one can rebut every opposing argument, but the good ones demand acknowledgment and a good intellectual wrestle."
And, adds, Daniel because the scholar bloggers have a higher standing in their blog hierarchy, there is an obligation on them to acknowledge the points made on the other side of the debate.
I would broaden the obligation. An obligation for evenhandedness with one's opponents exists for public policy blogs, due to their explicit connection to democratic citzenship. In contesting the opinions of their opponents, citizens should treat the arguments against their own position with respect, rather than just dismiss them. The obligation for active citizens is to the institutional forum that enables the public conversation, the development of a conversation to ensure that there is shifting and winnowing of our prejudices and to play a role in the formation of public policy.
And whilst we are on the topic an aside. Corporations are not a citizen of the republic .They are an artificial entity created by the state for economic purposes and which are endowed with massive public benefits, from limited liability and perpetual life to bankruptcy protection.
|
No.
Each blog has it's own metier.
You are a critic. You do not seek to defend a point of view, but rather you seek to critique what you see as the 'governing' point of view.
Tim Dunlop rather more directly made that point the other day.
You furthermore write in a very arcane style that makes it hard for bloggers like myself (or indeed Gareth, consider the discussion the other day with him) to actually argue with. The problem is that you are debating from starting points that us mere mortals don't really get.
Be that as it may, it takes two to make an arguement.
Furthermore, I reject totally the notion of 'obligation' for a blogger. A bloggers home is his/her castle and the blogger makes the rules. As blogger of "Public Opinion" you can only be true to yourself by writing what you feel the need to write about, rather then worrying about 'obligations' whether to fairness, debate, democracy or whatever.
If you feel those obligations, then you must take them on board. But you have no right to expect other bloggers, serious, semi-serious or otherwise to consider them.