Thursday, March 06, 2003

ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO BLOG

The great thing about blogs: everyone has an opinion.

The internet now allows anyone with access to a PC to express their opinion. Great. A major step towards true democracy so long as you have the ego to want to start posting your inner most thoughts.

The worst thing about blogs: everyone has an opinion.

The internet now allows anyone to set themselves up as a pundit extolling their views on cat litter, the price of lima beans, how great Michael Jackson is or that crappy programme on TV last night.

My reason for blogging? I think it's great fun. I spend more time reading and responding to blogs than I do writing my own. The whole information/opinion exchange is fantastic. In some ways, it has replaced the talking to the neighbours over the garden fence. A bit sad I know. That kind of stuff all but disappeared in London ages ago. So, you "talk" to people right the other side of the world instead.

Blogging has come along a the right time what with the war and all. Or is it the other way around? Has the war spurred people to have a rant on the internet. We won't know until the University of Lower Armpit carries out some research into the matter. There are just so many blogs out there now. Blogger has over 1 million registered. Truly staggering.

So, get to the point.

Blogging has also allowed many professional pundits, especially in the US, to flood the internet with their views. I have only touched the surface, but there seem to be dozens of all various hues. The great debate about the war is taking place here.

At random, I stumbled on to the blog of a right wing journalist, Howard Owens, from California. If nothing else, his is a prolific blog. The war is what's agitating him. He has no truck for those who oppose the "prossibable" invasion of Iraq. I started post a few comments on Howard's site. I was a bit surprised that he bothered to read and respond to them. Of course, Howard is a professional and probably (I don't know because his bio was down last time I checked) very experienced at leftie baiting.

I went along with this for a while. I go back from time to time and engage in a bit more debate. Howard will always have the last word. But, the experience was illuminating. It brought back to mind listening to tuning in the car radio when I was driving around south Texas (aka "the pits") several years ago. Just about all I could get on the radio was right wing talk shows like Gordon Liddy (convicted Watergate bugger/burglar). I had a good old shout at Gordon and the people who called in.

I don't remember if there were many dissenting voices. It must be a bit daunting to phone in just to get abused, but I'm sure some people tried. Anyway, would the producers allow dissenters on air? Surely, the message of these programmes is that of the host? (This brings in a free speech argument: shouldn't there be equal time on radio/TV? In Britain, this kind of propaganda is not permitted. We just get opinionated newspapers and magazines. In a very British way, we can be selective about the opinions we intake. Although I do remember a Tory voting colleague of mine who used to read the Guardian. But, I digress.)

So, I had my shout at Howard. The comments are on his web site with his responses. I was a little disappointed that, at times, he resorted to insults. This is part of the talk show style. I take issue with his generalisation of anti-protesters as anti-American and allies of communists.

The conclusion? Blogging has turned up at the right time. There needs to be a debate on the war. The internet is a great place for that to take place. Though it's not the only place - it should be debated (and is being debated) on the street corner and in Parliament, on TV, radio and down the pub.

Visit Howard and his friends (on the right and left) and join in the debate.

Debate: You inform through debate. You are informed by debate.

To earn respect: respect your adversaries.

:: Posted by pete @ 11:15