I bet blogs are quite the eye-opener for some folks who have lived with filters their whole life.

In many ways, on many sites, and not just in a metaphorical sense, virgin ears are in for a "rude awakening".

Was that lady's last name Broder?

What's a bullet pointed handout look like?

That's not only what I love best about blogging, but about America. But at the same time it is something of a shock to hear what your fellow Americans think when they speak their minds in the relatively anonymous blogging community. And the idea that the best response to this is "stamping out her attitude once and for all" is, IMHO, as wrong-headed as hers. This is the natural response, but also what we need to learn to grow beyond.

Blogs are the thought equivalent of Amazon.com. I enjoy your blog even though we don't agree on a lot and your commenters don't like me. I have been teaching students so long that I'm pretty much immune to the nasties and I do think you do a great job. Blogging has had huge effects on politics. I hope the effects from the left don't make the Democratic Party the equivalent of the 1970s Labour Party. Still, it is all out in the open and that is what makes it a good force no matter what the outcome. Getting closer to pure democracy. Of course, pure democracy lost the Pelopponesian War for Athens but we can't have everything.

Blogs give a voice to those who previously didn't have one. And I don't mean Kevin, I mean me. before this all I could hope for is to get my 15 seconds on a radio call in show. Before blogs the pundit class got to state what the people felt, now the people tell the pundit class how they actually feel. The reaction from the pundit class is to be expected. their power is waning and we all know that is the only thing that is important.

Blogs have empowered people to share truths they know will hold little sway with a corporate media. In so doing, they are the true history of the day. How many of us barely spend any time on traditional news outlets these days? Sometimes we are foolishly drawn in by the Lucy-Charlie Brown football paradigm, hoping the long slumber of journalism has ended. Really the only thing one need know about news in 2007 in Katie Couric reads it. Here Kevin, I have found experts in many fields, some daft trolls, but mostly thoughtful people led by yourself. It is good to hear GC or shortstop call in heavy artillery on malfeasance.
And the word fucktard. Or Chimpy McFlightsuit.
Damned nice to hear some truths, even in ways that would have led to soap-sucking as a child.

Thanks.

Kevin Drum: bloggers could probably do themselves a favor by stepping back once in a while and trying to understand the impact of being on the receiving end of a hundred furious blog posts, a thousand livid comments, and five thousand enraged emails telling you in very personal terms why you're a corrupt, sniveling, lying sycophant merely because you said something nice about Joe Lieberman or opposed net neutrality or opined that Harry Reid was wrong about the war.

As Harry Truman used to say: if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Being a big time journalist, or worse, a pundit, means walking around with a bull's eye painted on your chest. If you don't like it, then find another line of work.

What our MSM friends really dislike about the blogosphere is that it challenges their cozy little near monopoly on telling people what opinions they do, or ought to, have. It means an audience that can scream Bullshit! louder, faster and more effectively than the occasional letter-to-the-editor.

I think that's a good thing. But then again I'm radical enough to actually believe in the 1st Amendment.

Lots of people just short-circuit by any system that doesn't have a clear hierarchy. I mean, if anybody can say anything than that means no one is in charge of anyone else. Someone has to be in charge, right? Who'll protect the children? Who'll protect our village?

I never get negative comments on my blog. Why is that?

because ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH

It is the receiver of the information that creates the feelings attached to that information. The information does NOT carry the feelings. We know that cultures determine interpretation.

You deal with your feelings and I`ll deal with mine. Take some responsibility !

(Yea, I know. Next to impossible for ReThuglicans but still, they should at least try.)

"The mind is its own place,
and in itself can make a heaven of hell,
and a hell of heaven." - John Milton

Of course, pure democracy lost the Pelopponesian War for Athens but we can't have everything.

Hey, don't tell that famous classicist over at NRO. You know, the one that heard Cheney had read his books and fell in love?

Some wingnut who wrote a piece a few weeks ago saying essentially that people in general are stupid may be on to something.

I remember a lady telling me in an airport in 2002 when I was complaining about all the instrusive and inconvenient security processes that we had 'too much' freedom before 9/11, implying obviously that in here view 9/11 served a very good purpose.

The Lucky Sea Men: "Who'll protect the children?"

Why, we can always depend upon Congressman Mark Foley, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Missing and Exploited Childr -- oh, that's right. He resigned.

Never mind.

I think it could be pretty effectively argued that Athens lost the Peloponnesian War not due to pure democracy, but due to crude and overbearing hegemony over empire.

In any case, we agree that blogging be doubleplus good.

bloggers could probably do themselves a favor by stepping back once in a while and trying to understand the impact of being on the receiving end of a hundred furious blog posts, a thousand livid comments, and five thousand enraged emails telling you in very personal terms why you're a corrupt, sniveling, lying sycophant

If you really want to get a feel for what that's like, I suppose I could introduce you to an ex-girlfriend of mine....

What our MSM friends really dislike about the blogosphere is that it challenges their cozy little near monopoly on telling people what opinions they do, or ought to, have. It means an audience that can scream Bullshit! louder, faster and more effectively than the occasional letter-to-the-editor.

That's the thing, isn't it? That cranky, angry letter to the editor that the pundit received is more than just a source of amusement for the writer and his editor. Suddenly that angry, caustic LTE writer has a large audience. Suddenly the pundit isn't just being criticized by a reader, that pundit is being criticized in public and mocked for all the world to see. Critics of pundits aren't just irritants to pundits, they're direct competitors.

On the WaPo Op-Ed page, Broder might disgaree with Krauthammer, but Broder isn't going to to drive down the latter's popularity and attract more readership for himself (nor does he even want to do that). Blogs on the other hand are engaging in precisely that sort of game.

The thing monopolists fear the most is competition. The thing monopolists fear the second most is an informed clientele. Those are two big knocks against blogs, if you happen to be a member of the opinion making class.

If you really want to get a feel for what that's like, I suppose I could introduce you to an ex-girlfriend of mine....

You never told me that you dated my ex-wife....

> I bet blogs are quite the eye-opener
> for some folks who have lived with
> filters their whole life.

And that just about captures it. You have people like Joe Klein who have been collecting salaries in the 250k up to 1 million range for many years who were also protected from feedback by a group of "assistant editors" who were paid $12k (glamor position doncha know) to sort through the letters received by post, throw away 99.99995% of them, and pass on only the ones that contained _at most_ a bit of diffident disagreement with the pre-selected narrative.

Now the Kleins of the world are finding out that no, many of their readers never did agree with their opinions, and yes, it IS possible to fact-check opinion pieces. They don't like it a bit.

Cranky

[...] bloggers could probably do themselves a favor by stepping back once in a while and trying to understand the impact of being on the receiving end of a hundred furious blog posts, a thousand livid comments, and five thousand enraged emails telling you in very personal terms why you're a corrupt, sniveling, lying sycophant merely because you said something nice about Joe Lieberman or opposed net neutrality or opined that Harry Reid was wrong about the war. It's really not the same thing as mere "blunt criticism."

"Try to understand"? Some of us used to post to Usenet political groups in early-mid 1990s, where that was par for the course. Given the volume and diversity of viewpoints there, it was par for the course no matter what you said. Except that it wasn't "blog posts", per se, and much of it would come via personal email.

People don't have a right to be free from criticism, even unreasonable, unfair, impolite, and vulgar criticism. They are entitled to a one-way street. If you don't want people to say unpleasant things about what you say, you better not let people who aren't your sycophantic fans hear what you have to say. But if you want to communicate outside of a protective bubble, you need to deal with the fact that that goes two ways.

Professional reporters and pundits get paid very well for what they put out, and it is distributed widely. If they are too thin skinned to deal with the fact that people might react negatively to what they write, then they ought to find another job. Or except that the responses come with the territory, and suck it up.

Kevin said: "...trying to understand the impact of being on the receiving end of a hundred furious blog posts, a thousand livid comments, and five thousand enraged emails telling you in very personal terms why you're a corrupt, sniveling, lying sycophant merely because you said something nice about Joe Lieberman or opposed net neutrality or opined that Harry Reid was wrong about the war."

Nope, sorry. These otherwise-unemployables need a cure for their Cranial-Rectal Adhesion Syndrome. They didn't like it when Stephen Colbert told them they were worthless assholes, and they don't like it when we tell them. But the fact remains that 90% of what passes for a "journalist" in Washington is some worthless asshole who slept through Journalism 101.

I guess they didn't like it when real journalists like David Halberstam told them they were full of shit, either. And I know they all got upset when Bill Moyers held their feet to the fire on the selling of Iraq.

Sorry, I don't feel bad for these scumballs any more than I would feel bad if someone shot the little pissant who grafittis my neighborhood.

Sorry, I don't feel bad for these scumballs any more than I would feel bad if someone shot the little pissant who grafittis my neighborhood.

I'm just trying to brighten up the place -- no need to get homicidal....

While I certainly defend the rights of anyone to say anything in a blog posting or otherwise, the woman may have had a point: with freedom of speech should come a certain amount of responsibility: to be accurate and to be fair. Too many bloggers fail to be either.

The thing I don't like about blogging is that it allows anybody to say anything.-Some Blue Hair

I think what she means is that anyone can get on the internet and say anything. There is no responsibility in Internet blogging. No one says everything.

It's kinda like in the House of Commons when they stand up and shout "Rubbish!" at damn-fool notions. We've been needing the stick removed from the collective butt for a while.

Bush wants "benchmarks" now.

REALLY?

Fine, send him the same exact bill Bush just vetoed, Don't wait Dems always cower in corner and wait too long, no compromises, no chances, and that damn shithead better sign it. No gimmicks, no more BS.

Dems should jump on this one - is Bush lying again, go fast, give him the same bill - Bush BETTER sigh it NOW. Otherwise Bush is just lying again.

Right now. Dems do it right NOW.

Bloggers, like you Kevin, can stimulate research, debate (well, actually it's too often a scatological free-for-all) and a sense of community of ideas. You present news stories through the filter that is you. You run the risk of believing that what you find important actually is important, but the community of commenters can set you straight. Of course, they can also ignore you but that just means you go back to your natural state, so no harm done.
Good luck to us all, we're going to need it for the next 20 months.

The Romney candidacy has exposed me to a new phenomenon: fake bigots. We know that some people pretend to be tolerant but are actually prejudiced. That's why minority candidates sometimes don't get as many votes as polls predict.

Now I've met people who are actually tolerant, but pretend to be bigots. My closest friend and my spouse, both liberal Dems, unashamedly told me that they could never vote for Romney because of his religion. The joke is that they're not really prejudiced against Mormons, because they have no problem with Harry Reid.

Of course, when liberals slams a religion, that's not bigotry in their eyes. They don't believe liberals can ever be bigots. Liberals are the good guys. In their view,only conservatives can be bigots.

If Dems could find a way to get Cheney and Karl out of the office, they could get that little shit head Bush to sign anything.

Give that worthless snob a beer and get his damn signature.

Give that worthless snob a beer and get his damn signature.

That's the best idea I've heard in a long time.

mhr >"...completely unable to argue their point of view by means of a rational presentation of facts..."

The facts do have a pronounced liberal bias as "We the people..." are finding out. Maybe your problem is that you don`t like "meeting" actual facts. Your posts here don`t sound like they come from anyone that could tolerate a real debate where actual facts are used.

So how are Ann & Rush doing these days ?

"Democracy is made of knowledge." - Carlo Bonini

cmdicely >"...Some of us used to post to Usenet political groups in early-mid 1990s, where that was par for the course..."

Nailed it !

Usenet & BBSs were certainly good training for the blogosphere no question though blogville sure could use a "killfile" feature...

"The future will be a struggle between huge competing systems of psychopathology." - J. G. Ballard

Ah, Kevin.

The elitism of the liberal blogger at its best.

That "lady", as you so dismissivly put it, has just as much right to her opinion as you or Volok or any of your other lefty bloggers.

And you know what, she has a point. The internet is a great invention, but right now it is a commons, and we all know what happens to commons. It needs to be privatized.

If u dont like it here Egbeater you can go fuck yourself.

mhr: "I finally figured out why liberals acted that way- they were completely unable to argue their point of view by means of a rational presentation of facts."

You still haven't looked up the word "projection", have you? egbert, your idiocy grows exponentially with each passing day. Yes, the lady was entitled to her opinion. That ends the discussion, then, doesn't it? Don't forget to remind us that not everyone likes broccoli, okay?

". And stamping out her attitude once and for all just seems a whole lot more important than worrying about hurt feelings due to verbal feeding frenzies"

Yeah. Because people have such a uniformly good opinion about the mainstream media, right? So it's only fair that everyone should march in lockstep about you.

While I certainly defend the rights of anyone to say anything in a blog posting or otherwise, the woman may have had a point: with freedom of speech should come a certain amount of responsibility: to be accurate and to be fair. Too many bloggers fail to be either.

Good thing that problem is unique to bloggers, and never happens in, for instance, the commercial media.

Google and YouTube and the blogosphere are a nightmare for politicians and mainstream pundits. We now have the tools to fact-check their asses, and catch them in naked acts of hypocrisy.

I imagine that these days the dead tree pundits type a whole lot more slowly than they used to...

egbert: That "lady", as you so dismissivly put it

Dismissively? While I doubt whether Kevin knows for sure whether that woman is a lady, it only seems polite to give her the benefit of the doubt.

has just as much right to her opinion as you or Volok or any of your other lefty bloggers.

Yes, and I have the right to express my opinion that she's un-American and authoritarian for questioning the value of free discourse - one of the principles on which our country was founded.

The internet is a great invention, but right now it is a commons, and we all know what happens to commons. It needs to be privatized.

Uh, eggie dear, we must have forgotten to tell you - the Internet was privatized years ago. Apparently an idea promoted by someone named Al Gore.

,I.The internet is a great invention, but right now it is a commons, and we all know what happens to commons. It needs to be privatized.
Posted by: egbert on May 11, 2007 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

A little research will show that it was the 'commons', particularly in Boston, that started the American Revolution.

"I think it could be pretty effectively argued that Athens lost the Peloponnesian War not due to pure democracy, but due to crude and overbearing hegemony over empire.

In any case, we agree that blogging be doubleplus good.

Posted by: Mithra"

Well, we could talk about the night of the Hermes but we are agreed on blogging so let's not go there. Besides, my bassett is hungry.

If Ben Franklin or Tom Paine were alive today (yeah, yeah, I know, they would be really, really old) they would be f-bomb dropping bloggers.

That is good enough for me, and fuck you very much if you disagree.

A sad reality is that many Americans today, including many who consider themselves to be great patriots, have only the most sketchy understanding of what our system of government is all about or what the Constitution really says. They don't realize that, as Noam Chomsky has put it, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

It is easy to accord freedoms to those with whom you agree. When it really matters is when you accord the same freedom of expression to those with whom you disagree. The treatment accorded a nations dissidents determines the greatness of the nation.

Tonight on PBS Newshour, David Brooks says that Dems "want a civil war," BUT we all know that Dems don't want a civil war any more that they want to align themselves with Bin Laden. Dems don't want a civil war anymore that the oppressed civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. wanted a civil war. And just like Martin Luther King, neither can Dems afford to back down.

Unfortunately Dems sat idly by while Karl Rove came out and attacked them repeatedly, saying they were unpatriotic, and that Dems wanted to aligned themselves with terrorist. AND yet still, the Dem Party just sat there and did nothing but enable the GOP and Bush to practices these hate doctrines and the division of US congress for far too long.

Gonzales has had one of his US attornies to prosecute and jail an innocent Dem politician based completely on lies, which of course was over turned on appeal. When Dems gain control of congress, Bush had to curb his no fly list of Dems his administration hated. The Bush administration made Democrats in congress the enemy in exactly the same ugly way Joseph McCarthy dream up enemies of his fellow Americans.

and so, JUST as African Americans fought for the right to be treated with dignity, so to do liberals have to insist on this right. As we all noticed, Don Imus was fired from office for referring to those basketball players “as nappy headed hoes,� which goes to show how African Americans unit in a way that Dems should unit too and disallow this hate practice from Bush administration.

We should all applaud the fact that Nancy Pelsoi has been able to really pull the Dem Party together in a time where Party absolute MUST pulled together. NOW If only we could get Senator Leahy to take what Albert Gonzales did far more seriously, because in all truth what Gonzales did was certainly not ALL RIGHT. Gonzales was helping this nasty administration practice some very ugly tactics against Dems in order to pretend the appearance of improprieties were no voter fraud existed AND to keep criminal practices of Republicans from ever being prosecuted.

BTW, it was appalling to see that Jim Lehrer was agreeing with David’s comment that Dems want a civil war. Jim Lehrer has been belittling Mark Shield a lot lately and its very,very noticeable that Lehrer is putting his own partisan two-cent and been it's telling of Jim Lehrer. Lehrer is tuning out to be every bit as nasty and partisan as that armchair pundit David Broder.

Profound thought from Voltaire:
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men."

Good thing for blogs or we would all have on shackles. Especially with this administration's devastating abuse of power and penchant for bitterly dividing this country. Doesn't it feel great presenting your thoughts here, despite the expansive power claimed by this corrupt, over-reaching, and until recently, unencumbered administration.

Unfortunately Dems sat idly by

I got sick of it. Now I push back my damned self, here and here.

Wow--look at the additions to your blogsite. Impressively outstanding, BGRS

Kevin, I remember when merely posting a comment on Democratic Underground got you pummeled by angry e-mails. Right wing wack-os literally sat around, reading posts and sending you hate mail for being stupid. If you posted a story on their front page, God help you.

You know what? It didn't intimidate me because that's what they wanted to do. In a hostile media environment, sane folks were looking for other people who hadn't lost their minds, and the war porn addicts were out to shout you down before it took hold.

I wrote each and every one of them back in kind. When I wrote for a weekly, I used to revel in the hate mail. I got off on it.

Are you telling me Alter hasn't been on the receiving end of hate mail from the "liberal media" conspirators? No complaints about civility or discourse. I'm telling you, the meanest thing I've ever read posted about Malkin doesn't even come close to what you hear spewed at you from the ALL CAPS crowd when you stray from the flock. Why does our criticism sting so much?

Because we cut them where it hurts. The truth often does.

Thank you, CWA - did you have a good week?

egbert: "That 'lady', as you so dismissivly put it ..."

Ah, egbert.

The only real lady you'll ever know is Rudy Giuliani in drag.

Aloha, Donald! How is your sunset in paradise this evening?

A good many of the factual blogs -- like those on auto mechanics, TiVO, etc. -- are a real breakthrough in permitting folks in the know to help out.

As for the political blogs -- like this one -- just so much white space being filled mainly by folks who (a) are posting because it gives them a self-satisfied feeling of importance though none is due; or (b) are posting as a condition of their employment.

As for me, I'm open to (b) should the Washington Monthly require yet another to fill up space.

Off topic.

We are surrounded by BUFFOONS!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2003694662.html

http://www.kfdm.com/news/bees_20379___article.html/bee_apartment.html

Steve Bell on Tony Blair's retirement.

Yes, print reporters don't like the blogs because they are suddenly getting pushback, after all the years when "the reader" was virtually silent and passive--for sure; but maybe more important is print reporters' fear that blogging will ultimately cost them their jobs: sites like TMP will increasingly take over the reporting function, as the rest of the blogosphere has already largely taken over the opinion function.

I can understand this. I'm a bookseller, and I think that eventually my business will be overtaken by information provided over the internet. I'm looking for something else to do, and it is scary.

Maybe reporters will become more sympathetic to those who've been off-shored or down-sized over the past couple decades.

cmdicely wrote:

People don't have a right to be free from criticism, even unreasonable, unfair, impolite, and vulgar criticism.

Kevin does have that right. If he doesn't like your comments, for any reason or no reason, he will block your IP address and you won't be able to post any more comments here.

That yummy Mormon Stud Muffin. I could just eat him up. Be my boy toy? What eye candy.

Kevin,

If the reporters who whine and rant against "bloggers" would stop painting with the broadest of brushes, your point would be more persuasive. But there is someting that reeks of bad faith with these broad-based attacks, and it is the very symptom that many bloggers feel about corporate owned media punditry: The punditry is very narrow in their focus, often mistaken about important policy issues (and when corrected, ignore the correction), and too often find more faults (real and more often imagined) against Democratic Party candidates for office than Republican Party candidates for office.

I know you know this, but I think your point is really directed to the email flamers--and that distinction is completely lost or ignored by the pundits who rip bloggers.

I hope someone gave her the natural, automatic, and appropriate response of: "Oh, you mean, just like the First Amendment?"

That's right, lady. Anybody can say anything. That's how it works here.

("here" being both "America" *and* "on blogs")

Someone may have already pointed this out. If so, I apologize since I don't even pretend to read everything others have written.

The real problem with bloggers is that they are not as easily controlled by money, mainly through advertising, as mainstream media. From politically correct ideology to rightwing dogma, money can get almost anything printed, broadcast, or otherwise published. For someone with deep pockets, the mere notion that a writer cannot be bought, sold, or traded lies somewhere between the realms of criminal and insane!

bell, you must not be noticing the increasing commercialization of the blogosphere, including this site. the washington monthly isn't exactly awash in money.it's got to cover the cost of this site by attracting eyeballs, just the same as any msm outlet. money is a two-way street. advertisers crave eyeballs; they don't care how they get them, just as long as they get their message seen. the influence money has reflects more on what doesn't get printed or aired than what does.

Well I'm sure we're all impressed with your bravery in stomping on old women Drum but here is a way to actually encourage more women into politics instead of repulsing them. Even a political vegetable like you should be able to follow this argument.
Fascist hate speech that leads to violence should be outlawed and censored much like the laws against holocaust denial in Europe. This would encourage more sensible and decent women into politics. This would be safe to do in the present circumstances ( last empire dying )and so long as the size and power of the state continues its overall healthy and dramatic decline then even libertarian socialists could support this measure to censure fascist hate speech that could be linked to either a tradition of violence
( Marxism, trad Fascism, Sharia, etc) or any specific act such as gay bashing. All constitutional legal rights would be respected in any trials arising from these new laws. Due process, habeus, fifth ammendment right and etc.
Whats not to like?
Or would you rather carry on granny bashing?

Who said she was old? Does this tell us something about your view of women, professor?

Look, ex-liberal..

"Of course, when liberals slams a religion, that's not bigotry in their eyes."

..there is a difference between hating a system of ideas that hurts people, and hating individuals. Generally, liberals hate people for what they do, while conservatives hate people simply for what they are.

Comments about liberal bigotry are so tired, my friend. They are so easily shot down, as done above.

Criticizing religious practices is not bigotry. Ever. And that's kind of what this post was about: nothing is simply immune to criticism, nothing is simply considered hands-off because we might hurt someone's wittle feelings.

Especially when the tropes come from cowards who send other people to kill and die in their places, and never answer direct challenges on anything.

ex-lib, Al, egbert, and mhr all have other priorities--like masturbating onto their keyboards while mother is away. But they do have a very strong sense of the failure of patriotism in others.

Blogging is merely the equivalent of spraying graffitti on the walls of a public toilet. Those doing it bring a rush of self-accomplishment to their otherwise mediocre lives and it gives a few others something to vacantly stare at as they rearrange themselves and consider whether or not to wash their hands before exiting.

If anyone has priced a printing press or broadcast transmitter of late, they should be fully aware that the cost of doing business on the Internet has largely voided A.J. Liebling's quip on freedom of the press.

At the same time, I am quite aware of insidious commercial creep. It is the primary reason I gave up listening to NPR.

Congratulations Kevin, you are halfway to becoming a conservative! I'm sure the rest of the journey will be swift and smooth.

It's all about control. Control driven by fear.

Throughout history, this has been the pattern. Control the message. Control what is written. Control what is heard. Control what is read. In an attempt to control what people think. What they talk about. What they teach their children to think and talk about, who then will teach their children what to think and talk about...and worship.

The world's religions are a prime example. The whole purpose of any religion is to perpetuate itself, generation after generation, from baptism to burial. In fact, any ideology established by humans has this as it's goal. Communism? Same thing. Nazism? Same.

Which is what makes any democracy so interesting. Democracy is a seething cauldron of many different ideologies, with the ideal of being tolerant toward others, with living in peace, being the goal.

So what happened?

Someone decided that their religious ideology is the one and only true ideology, and all U.S. citizens (and world citizens, too) must bow down to their religious ideology.

So, 9/11 happened.

And the perversion, subversion of the U.S. Justice Department happened.

As has the perversion, subversion of our Constitution, and our civil liberties, happened.

Control. Based on someone's fear of losing control. Of the message. Of what people are thinking. Of other people's behavior.

Which is why the internet and the blogosphere is such a threat to certain people. The totalitarians. The monopolists. The anti-democracy crowd with their troll brigades.

How much you want to bet that the Bush administration (in our free and democratic society) already has programs and mechanisms in place to shut down large segments of the internet and blogosphere if ever martial law is declared?

Only "acceptable" communications will be allowed. With compliant telecommunications companies willing to do it. To control the message flow. To control who is talking to whom. Just like what the Communist Red Chinese are attempting to do over in their monopolistic, totalitarian Commieland.

Go figure. Someone's trying to do the same thing in our free and democratic society, except they are using religion, or one's political affiliation, as their crutch. I'm not fooled.

journalists need to separate their emotions from their intellect when it comes to blog criticism. if the criticism is right, they need to recognize it and deal with it honestly. the stuff left over -- the baseless vituperation, the labeling, the viciousness -- just ignore it. the trouble is the journalists who lump the worst aspects of the blogosphere with the best and dismiss both out of hand.
to hell with their feelings. they've been coddled and insulated for far too long. that's why so much of their works stinks.

She may not have stated it well but she had a point. The value of a good newspaper or other news source is the editing. They provide you with a condensed, hopefully accurate version of the topic at hand. If "anybody can say anything" you have a fresh, unfiltered access to the news but you probably also have to dig through a lot of chaff to find the kernels of real information. Both have their value.