Okay, I think maybe I've been a little remiss over the past few weeks in scanning through even the blogs I link to. There are so many, who write so much, that just trying to keep with these few is difficult. And then, I have to develop posts myself, which also takes time. And than there's that reality of life thing, since no one is paying my to do this, yet. Well, I finally went by Orcinus
today, the first time in a little while, which becomes obvious when you see that I'm commenting on a post he made 15 days ago. Actually, I think I scanned it, found it interesting, but...Well, if you go over there now, his lead post is Freeing Lolita
, which is an excellent piece in itself concerning the freeing of captured Orcas. I find our (human) treatment of most animals to be pretty sad, if not just immoral.
But the story I want to comment on here is Orcinus: The Media Revolt Manifesto
which includes points like these:
1. The well-being of American democracy ultimately depends on a well-informed electorate. As such, the role of the media in keeping the public properly informed is not merely vital, it is sacred.
2. Over the past 20 years, American media have been in a state of serious decline insofar is it lives up to the responsibilities of this role:
-- Conglomeration and the increasing grip of monolithic corporatism has reduced the diversity of voices and viewpoints that are available to the public at all levels, from small local papers to major networks.
-- The rising dominance of television journalism has replaced serious journalism geared toward the public interest and policy with infotainment journalism that regards the value of stories almost solely for their ability to garner viewers through titillation, scandal-mongering and gore, while the perverse and demeaning cult of celebrity is elevated to the highest echelons.
-- The demise of the Fairness Doctrine has ensured that the public airwaves, controlled by a handful of conservatives given free rein to institute a hierarchy or self-interested propaganda, are now entirely the domain of right-wing ideologues who view defamation as entertainment and factuality and fairness as ratings death.
-- As a result of all these changes, reportage that remained vital to the public interest even though it may not have garnered strong bottom-line results -- especially investigative journalism, policy analysis, and international news -- became relegated to afterthought status."
And, if you read past Freeing Lolita
, you will see a great number of bloggers have commented on the manifesto, and many of these comments are well worth your time as well.
The synchronicity stems from the fact that for the past few weeks, I have been thinking in terms of a manifesto, though I'm thinking more of an information manifesto than a media manifesto, but manifesto none the less. Then, this morning when I was checking over at Drunken Monkey Style Blogging
(damn, he has a lot of links - in fact, he is a blogging 'time' consumer), and got linked to DaveNet : Harvard case study on blogging
: "Trent Lott and the bloggers
A milestone case study from the Shorenstein Center was released on Friday last week. It tells the story of Senator Trent Lott, (R-MS); his talk at Strom Thurmond's birthday party in December 2002, and how the news flowed through professional channels, to the blogosphere, and back, ultimately resulting in Lott's resignation as majority leader of the US Senate.
Shorenstein Center is part of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University."
. Here I followed the embedded link to "Big Media" Meets the "Bloggers":...
whose written 'use' policy is severely, ironically, anti-blogger. You know, no part of this publication, yada, yada, yada, stored in a retrieval system, yada, yada, yada. And you can't copy and paste a paragraph or two from the .pdf file, and when you blog the page, they don't even have the decency to put the paper's title in the .html. But, it is synchronous event number two, since it falls right in with what Neiwert is talking about. Anyway, it is a recently released paper/study, I've only scanned it so far, but it looks pretty interesting if you're into blogging, or understanding the blogging phenomena.
Well, okay, I think I've forgot a couple of points of synchronicty, but I do want to get around to my point, and that is I view 'this thing of ours' a little differently. I see myself as living and surviving as a blogger, by this, I mean posting and having readers actually read the posts, by establishing credibility. I've posted on this, but not to any real depth.
Credibility. How do I decided to believe what you have written? One thing, I look at who you've cited, and see if your cites already established a credibility level w/ me. If not, I can start following the cites until I hit a point which establishes that cite's credibility. Then I go back to the blog and move on to the next cite. Or it could work like this, if I care enough about your argument to go through the effort. Now, over time, a particular blogger/source will develop a credibility rating w/ me. When I read MaxSpeak, You Listen!
, Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004): a Weblog
, etc. they have a credibility rating after all this time, and usually only follow their cites if I want more info on the topic. Other blogs, like Fafblog! the whole worlds only source for Fafblog.
don't really need to establish credibility w/ me, because they are just good at satirizing on the stories I usually already know a great deal about.
Regardless, I think I have to establish my credibility with you. I can do that by providing you with good information, well presented (sometimes), well thought out (rarely) but importantly, you must feel that what I'm providing is worth your time and reflects my opinions. I am not here providing someone else's opinion as my own. I will cite opinions of others in either support of my own, or to provide contrast to my own opinions.
Sorry, I think I just got lost in writing disclaimer of my own.
Credibility. Made from credits. How does one earn credit? Through interactions with others. Hell, it dawns on me that I have a fairly lengthy piece on this over at Rogue Analyst - "Information Metric"
, though when I pasted this to the blog, I got a whole bunch of those squares and As w/ the boomerangs over them, and it does make it a little tedious to get through, and I probably should take the time to edit them out and replace them with the correct symbols. I will certainly make the time If I can figure out how to post my 'wu' symbol, which is a cursive style 'w' w/ a bar across the top. It sort of looks like a simple idiogram for a pair of well-endowed breasts. Might be why I chose it as a symbol for 'wu', since my concept of 'wu' as a metric for irrational judgements of credibility. I won't explain.
Back to the job hunt...