I received the following note from Peter Robson :-
Hi Doug, A quick quote – “Blogging has replaced the journalism of verification with the journalism of assertion” A statement lifted from a programme on political blogs, but nevertheless relevant to blogs in general. This could give you a starting point for a blog discussion, as I notice you like to do this sort of thing. Peter
My response to this is that blogging isn’t journalism of any recognisable variety. That might seem a strange statement because a human is writing on matters that interest them and might interest others, with an implicit individual perspective. In fact, if I’m honest I could make a very easy argument that blogging is journalism.
However, it’s always seemed to me that the weblog’s natural cousin is the fanzine. I’ve read hundreds of fanzines since I was a teenager, largely music or football-related and part of my enjoyment of them is that they take a position, rant about it and the best are hilarious into the bargain. If the writing is a bit amateurish, the facts occasionally off the mark (but only occasionally), I can make some allowances for that because of the passion of the writer. It’s a simple fact that I don’t hold a fanzine writer to the same standards that I expect from a newspaper journalist. Maybe I should, but I don’t. (However, if you want an example of a great fanzine writer, look no further)
Don’t get me wrong. I do tone it down because I work in the IT industry and I depend on a reliable stream of clients so I can’t really afford to say anything too contentious or sprinkle my output with passionate exclamations (some friends would recognise that as a euphemism for swearing – sorry Tom 😉 ). I’d be sad, however, if I was expected to produce writing of the same quality as a professional journalist. I’m sorry, but it’s not what I do and I mean this as a slightly opinionated diary with some Oracle stuff thrown in occassionally.
Then I saw the following blog from Mike Ault and, quite aside from being utterly confused at his version of Christianity, it occurred to me that it makes some very sweeping assertions and, where I might upset the odd book author, I think Mike’s opinions are dangerous, represented as fact and deeply offensive to everyone I know who’s read it (more than a dozen, so far). It’s narrow-minded, hateful nonsense like this that gives the rest of the world a bad view of Americans. It’s no-one else’s fault that they should be tarred with the same brush, but the insular nature of Mike’s views sounds awfully like anti-the-rest-of-the-world and you can’t really expect the rest of the world to react positively. Mike bends Christianity to suit his purposes as sure as fundamentalists bend Islam.
Fortunately, I’m able to come back to one of the strengths of blogging, that I’ve pointed out to Peter in the past, and that is the right of instant reply. Reading the comments to Mike’s blog restores some of my faith in my fellow human beings and our higher possibilities.
I was amazed at Mike’s comments. The americans I’ve met have been charming, delightful, intelligent people (three times an american has been the most important lady in my life).
One consolation:
– they believe in democracy
– they are only a 5% minority of the world population
I’m just not sure how to work that into a cunning plan (TM).
I don’t think I would disagree with anything you say here, Doug (and particualrly the comments about Mike’s post).
So, perhaps I should take that original quote, and rephrase it (I hasten to add that it was not mine in the first place). Try this:
“Blogging has added the voice of assertion to the journalism of verification”
The crux here is exchanging ‘replaced’ with ‘added’. Because the two are not exclusive, but mutually complimentary. Many journalists trawl the bloggs for material which they then attempt to verify, and then possibly publish, as, ‘verified journalism’. QED!
dapi said…
“I was amazed at Mike’s comments. The americans I’ve met have been charming, delightful, intelligent people (three times an american has been the most important lady in my life).”
That’s why I was loathe to even mention the fact that Mike was American because I wouldn’t want to unfairly ascribe his views to others. However, even if there is a perception in the rest of the world that Mike’s views might be common in America, it doesn’t auger well for international relations. The danger is that, knowing how powerful your country is, it’s easy to become insular and arrogant. With great power comes great responsibility, as someone may have said once.
Hopefully I balanced that comment a little with an earlier blog highlighting some of the anti-Americanism that can exist in Britain. Both views are narrow-minded, inaccurate and unhelpful.
I want to finish by saying that your comments were fantastic and saved me from a short but severe depression 😉 I’m glad that Mike’s free to make those comments but I’m delighted that you’re free to point out the stupidity they contain.
I enjoyed Howard’s comment too, but apparently it doesn’t count because he lives in Australia. Or something.
>> “Blogging has replaced the journalism of verification with the journalism of assertion”
One could apply the same principle to the concept of 24 hour rolling news. Those idiots can turn a single disputed fact into a three hour live special.
Peter Robson said…
“Blogging has added the voice of assertion to the journalism of verification
The crux here is exchanging ‘replaced’ with ‘added’. Because the two are not exclusive, but mutually complimentary. Many journalists trawl the bloggs for material which they then attempt to verify, and then possibly publish, as, ‘verified journalism’. QED! “
I think that’s a useful clarification, Peter. I’ve become more aware of journalists in the traditional media using blogs as sources, but I do hope that they verify the information first. I have an extremely high regard for journalists. Yes, we have a gutter press, but also some writers I look up to and I think it can be a truly noble profession in the right hands. (Okay, so I’m naive 😉 )
However, I hope they’re verifying this nonsense when they base a story on it 😉
Enlightening (and slightly disturbing) entry. I would respond to it on Mike’s own blog, but the town of his responses make it clear (to me) that he is not interested in engaging in any sort of discussion.
There has always been journalism without verification and there always will be. When properly identified, these writings belong on the opinion page, where they are easily identifiable and assertions are allowed (though a good journalist should offer some support).
As an American, Mike has the right within the US to publish his opinion as long as it passes the ‘yelling fire in a crowded theater’ test. As narrow minded, irrational and aggravating as I might find his latest entry, it is still protected by our laws.
As is my right to criticize it. Let’s not confuse the right to speak with the ability to speak rightly (as in proper).
1 – The #1 source of crude oil and products flowing into the US is … Canada.
2 – The #1 purchaser of US agricultural products is … Canada.
If you take a moment and do a little bit of research, it becomes clear that the argument Mike is using does not stand up to basic analysis. His oil for food stand does not hold up to scrutiny.
This type of debate is exactly what our founding fathers (rebels and scoundrels to Peter and Doug 😉) had in mind. Allow ‘lies’ to be heard in open debate so that they could be analyzed and disproven.
As for his linking Christianity to this concept, my opinion of the teachings of Jesus Christ (my father is a retired minister) contraindicate his statements.
However, a common tactic here in the US is to stifle debate on a topic by using emotionally charged words or ideas when you are asked to defend your position. By linking a person’s spiritual belief (something that is not open to debate in my opinion) to his statements, he can stifle the debate by saying “I’m a Christian and this is what is going to save my soul.”
It’s sad, really.
Boy, the first line and I make a mistake….
I meant the tone of his responses…not town…
Had to read it twice. Well, as I am always saying, he is certainly entitled to his opinion. As we are all entitled to disagree with him. The isolationists apparently are back in record numbers. Thankfully, the twit in office right now is only occupying that seat for another few years. And equally thankfully, Mike won’t be replacing him anytime soon.
BTW, like the audio word verification option – very PC (and I mean that in a GOOD way Doug). 😄
Dan,
“By linking a person’s spiritual belief (something that is not open to debate in my opinion) to his statements, he can stifle the debate by saying “I’m a Christian and this is what is going to save my soul.”
… or by linking a person’s nationality or heritage (something that he can’t change) to his statements, they can stifle debate by saying “what would you know, you don’t even live here”. I agree with you that I would have responded on Mike’s blog, but it would appear that I have to be American to have a valid opinion. When someone starts off from that basis, it calls the rest of what he has to say into some doubt.
Bill,
“BTW, like the audio word verification option – very PC (and I mean that in a GOOD way Doug). :-D”
All Blogger’s work 😉
P.S. Aren’t you two American? Perhaps you’re foreign-based 😉
“This type of debate is exactly what our founding fathers (rebels and scoundrels to Peter and Doug 😉) had in mind. “
Give me a rebellious scoundrel over a blind fool any time 😉
Daniel said: I would respond to it on Mike’s own blog, but the tone of his responses make it clear (to me) that he is not interested in engaging in any sort of discussion.
I don’t think that should stop you. Qui tacet consentire videtur. Silence implies consent – so I had to say something. I was hoping that someone, more eloquent, more knowledgeable in economics and geo-politics than I, would follow the charge. But I had to say “NO”.
Edmund Burke? “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
doug burns said …
P.S. Aren’t you two American? Perhaps you’re foreign-based 😉
Yup. Born and raised here, 2nd generation. Whilst I understand DaPi’s viewpoint (re: commenting on Mike’s blog) I agree with Dan; Mike doesn’t seem interested in opposing viewpoints, and I don’t have the time or the patience to try to change the shape of a mind cast in concrete.
DaPi, if we’re commenting here, then we’re not silent. OK, it’s not as effective as commenting on Mike’s own blog, but at least we’re commenting. Just like not all Americans agree with Dubyah, not all Americans think like Mike. I would HOPE that was generally understood. 😄
Bill said: if we’re commenting here, then we’re not silent. OK, it’s not as effective as commenting on Mike’s own blog, but at least we’re commenting.
Great! and don’t stop!
I’m no lawyer, but the discussions I’ve seen of Qui tacet consentire videtur have talked of the obgligation to cry “Stop Thief” if you see someone’s pocket being picked. [exageration]It’s no good going home and whispering “stop thief” into a closet two hours later.[/exageration] To some degree the battle has to be taken to the enemy.
I know it is important to say something and not remain silent. That is why we are discussing this here (and on other blogs … coming soon to mine). It is also important not to be pulled into a situation where the actual issues become obscured (just ask John Kerry about the most recent US presidential election).
One of the tactics being used in the illegal alien debate here in the US is to use the word ‘racist’ when someone argues against amnesty or ignoring the current laws. Granted, there are racists and xenophobes who are anti-immigration, but they are the fringe. By using this term and these types of tactics, meaningful discourse disappears.
“I think Mike’s opinions are dangerous, represented as fact and deeply offensive to everyone I know who’s read it.”
I wasn’t deeply offended. It takes a lot more than that to “deeply” offend me. Gay-bashing, comparing people to Hitler, genocide, jihads, take your pick.
I’ll admit it’s odd to read such words from an Oracle consultant who would probably sell more books and get more work by keeping potentially contentious opinions to himself. But its hardly unusual – Steven Feuerstein also speaks openly about his politics. I doubt its hurting their business.
Which reminds me of one thing I love about the United States – the free speech. Sure, other countries have free speech, but only in the USA is it really practised to its full extent. For example, only in the United States will two news stations (or newspapers) have significantly different takes on the issues. But I digress.
I don’t disagree with your comments Doug, but perhaps they need some perspective. They’re not that bad.
Rob said
“I wasn’t deeply offended.”
That’s fair enough but happens to have no bearing on the fact that I and every individual I happen to know was offended. Clearly Mike isn’t offended by comments he made, you aren’t offended by them, I and others are.
“It takes a lot more than that to “deeply” offend me. Gay-bashing, comparing people to Hitler, genocide, jihads, take your pick.”
I find it breathtaking that you think ‘comparing people to Hitler’ is worse than saying “Of course, we would have to harden ourselves to the site of hungry and starving children, that will be the first weapon they would use, pictures of their children.”
Comparing someone to Hitler might hurt them if they cared what someone else thought about them. A starving child is a completely different scale of problem. I think you need a little perspective there.
Interesting use of the word jihad there, too. Would you be including war in general?
“I’ll admit it’s odd to read such words from an Oracle consultant who would probably sell more books and get more work by keeping potentially contentious opinions to himself. But its hardly unusual – Steven Feuerstein also speaks openly about his politics. I doubt its hurting their business.”
I’m absolutely behind every individuals rights to hold the opinions that they do and the fact that they’re an Oracle consultant is neither here nor there. I don’t, however, have to agree to them and I can point out the blatant hypocrisy in calling yourself a Christian whilst placing gas prices over hungry children.
“Which reminds me of one thing I love about the United States – the free speech. Sure, other countries have free speech, but only in the USA is it really practised to its full extent. For example, only in the United States will two news stations (or newspapers) have significantly different takes on the issues. But I digress.”
Are you serious? Really? I’m absolutely flabbergasted that you would think that and, to me, it only betrays your insular view of the world. I can name you half a dozen countries in Europe about which the same could be said without having to think too hard. That’s precisely the kind of short-sighted world view that troubles me. You should get out more, really 😉
Oh, and if America is the land of free speech, then why are so many of the counter-arguments from “notably foreign based readers”? Is it that there’s a climate where to challenge these views is risky?
“I don’t disagree with your comments Doug, but perhaps they need some perspective. They’re not that bad.”
Rob, I think they are. To place starvation in other countries above your gas prices is, in my opinion, sick. That’s my opinion and you’ve said nothing here that would change my mind. And, hey, I’m not even a Christian 😉
bill said
“DaPi, if we’re commenting here, then we’re not silent. OK, it’s not as effective as commenting on Mike’s own blog, but at least we’re commenting.”
and you can rest assured that everyone is welcome, threads won’t get locked and nothing will be getting deleted. I’m not sure what I’d do about pornography or swearing or all those things that other people delete but I can’t imagine what would make me delete a comment.
“Just like not all Americans agree with Dubyah, not all Americans think like Mike. I would HOPE that was generally understood. :-D”
Bill, you can take it from me that I understand that and I think the majority do.
I said: “I wasn’t deeply offended.”
Doug said: “That’s fair enough but happens to have no bearing on the fact that I and every individual I happen to know was offended.”
You said EVERYBODY was deeply offended. I was just saying that it’s not everybody. That was the intended relevance of my comment.
Doug said: “Interesting use of the word jihad there, too. Would you be including war in general?”
War is deeply offensive, but sometimes necessary. Can the same be said of jihads?
In today’s world, I’m offended by either extreme vulgarity, or promoting hatred or injury upon any person or group.
I’m disappointed by greed, selfishness and apathy to suffering, but not deeply offended by it.
Besides, it’s not like we’re putting as much effort into starving children as we are in getting oil right now, so how can I be offended by someone basically saying “hey, let’s do more of what we’re already doing!!”
Doug: “I don’t, however, have to agree to them and I can point out the blatant hypocrisy in calling yourself a Christian whilst placing gas prices over hungry children.”
Who asked you to? (And who does?)
Doug: “You should get out more, really ;-)”
Last year I spent a total of 9 weeks in Europe (France, Italy). Even if I hadn’t, please be careful about stating the unkind conclusions you’ve reached about me. Not nice, not fair.
Doug: “Oh, and if America is the land of free speech, then why are so many of the counter-arguments from “notably foreign based readers”? Is it that there’s a climate where to challenge these views is risky?”
Ah, in Europe it wouldn’t be unpopular to CHALLENGE Mike’s views, it would be unpopular to AGREE with them.
Put it this way: how often would you hear a rant like Mike’s in Europe? Compared to America? Not as often, I think.
So while the Europeans may be challenging an American’s view, this whole discussion began with an American expressing a controversial view.
Rob,
This could get long 😉 so I’ll just pick out some of your new comments.
“You said EVERYBODY was deeply offended. I was just saying that it’s not everybody. That was the intended relevance of my comment.”
That’s not true. I said “deeply offensive to everyone I know who’s read it (more than a dozen, so far)”. Explain to me where I’ve said that EVERYONE finds it offensive? Isn’t it clear that I’m saying that, of all of the people who I know, who I’ve asked, and who have read it, all were offended? Do you really think I walk around in a world where I think no-one agrees with Mike? Do you really think I’m that stupid?
“War is deeply offensive, but sometimes necessary. Can the same be said of jihads?”
If you give me a coherent argument defining the difference between one war and another, then let’s have a sensible debate. However, I strongly suspect that the mere mention of the word jihad makes you instantly think of something that is characteristically different than a war. I hear this word used as short-hand for so many things by the media, that I just want to be clear on why you think they’re different.
“In today’s world, I’m offended by either extreme vulgarity, or promoting hatred or injury upon any person or group.”
Don’t you think there is any promotion of hatred towards other countries in Mike’s original blog?
“I’m disappointed by greed, selfishness and apathy to suffering, but not deeply offended by it.”
I’m struggling to understand how things find themselves in the above two categories but I suppose that’s because these are personal opinions and feelings. I have mine and they’re quite clearly different to yours.
“Last year I spent a total of 9 weeks in Europe (France, Italy). Even if I hadn’t, please be careful about stating the unkind conclusions you’ve reached about me. Not nice, not fair.”
Entirely based on your statement that America is the one place where freedom of speech is truly practiced. Do explain to me how freedom of speech is restricted in Europe (that would be fair, wouldn’t it) and I might feel you have a semblance of a clue about life here.
But do you know what I find absolutely hilarious, you defend Mike’s right to say the things he did in his blog and then you get upset because someone says you should get out more. Starving children vs. minor insult. And *I* need to get things in perspective?!?!? Rolling about the floor laughing at that to be honest. I’m sorry if I upset you 😉
“Ah, in Europe it wouldn’t be unpopular to CHALLENGE Mike’s views, it would be unpopular to AGREE with them.”
Do you think that? I think you’re probably right, actually, but if I did a quick tour of a couple of desks at work it would maybe take me a minute or two to find someone who agrees with Mike. Then we’d have a damn good argument about it. Where on earth are you getting these ideas about European debate *from*?
“Put it this way: how often would you hear a rant like Mike’s in Europe? Compared to America? Not as often, I think.”
Poppycock. I hear things like that daily at work. You’re just wrong.
Please, if you just think I’m being horrible or argumentative for the sake of it, feel free to spend a few days in Edinburgh. We’ll hang out, argue in pubs, slag each others points of view to destruction and probably raise voices too. Because, frankly, what you’re describing bears no reality to my world.
Do you get your idea about us from Fox News or something 😉
“bears no reality to my world.”
I meant *resemblance*
Interesting. Because I’m not deeply offended by what Mike said, I have surrendered the right to take exception to a personal shot without being ridiculed?
I will take you up on your offer the next time I’m in Edinburgh and if I hear the same broad range of opinions expressed as I do in my visits to the US, it will be a pleasant and enlightening experience.
Until then, I’m on record saying that there is at least one person you know who has read Mike’s views that is not deeply offended by them (which, by the way, is ALL I meant), that I think certain types of wars (such as holy wars) are more offensive to me than others (such as, say, wars of independence against an oppressor or occupier), and that Americans exercise their rights to free speech to a fuller, broader extent than any other country. And I’m fine to accept leaving those matters in a state of respectful disagreement between us.
P.S. We don’t get Fox News in Canada, which is sad because it sucks when every tv station presents the same stories in the same way.
“Interesting. Because I’m not deeply offended by what Mike said, I have surrendered the right to take exception to a personal shot without being ridiculed?”
If you want to twist my words, Rob, there’s nothing I can do to argue back. Here’s what I said
“Starving children vs. minor insult. And *I* need to get things in perspective?!?!? Rolling about the floor laughing at that to be honest. I’m sorry if I upset you ;-)”
It seems that a mild joke at your expense is more worthy of criticism than Mike’s comments. I accused you having no sense of *perspective*, being very sensitive to your poor feelings but not quite so sensitive to my digust at Mike’s comments or other points of view. But you’re right, we ain’t going to agree on this any time soon and i have better things to do with my time than nurse your poor feelings.
Over and out.
Robert,
I definitely find Mike’s viewpoint offensive, though I wholeheartedly support his right to not only have that viewpoint but to express it as well. And I am American, so I get to say that loudly 😄.
Some points I noticed that I think are worth mentioning here:
Mike said on his blog:
First blog entry:
“I believe we need to tie the cost of a bushel of wheat, corn or other food stuff directly to the cost of a barrel of oil from the particular country we get the oil from.”
Obviously he feels that the oil producing nations are the cause of all our oil price troubles.
BUT then on the SECOND blog entry he writes:
“Remember, everyone pays the same for a barrel of oil, if your prices are high, look to your government and oil companies, as we in the USA need to look at ours.”
Looks like Mike has done a complete 180. Wonder what changed his mind? Or maybe he hasn’t REALLY changed his mind, maybe we are just seeing a bias towards foreigners? I mean, he seems to be saying we should punish them for stuff that our own government (and our own oil companies) are responsible for? Hmmmmm, not sure I can agree with that one at all.
Also from the second blog entry:
“Do I want to see children starve? No, however, I am not responsible for their current or future state, their government is, until their governments are “shown the light” they will continue to starve regardless of what we do or don’t do.”
Seems like a decidely un-Christian viewpoint if you ask me. What ever happened to love thy neighbor? If I recall the bible correctly (not sure, LOOOOOONG time since I looked at one) Jesus was all for feeding the starving and the hungry. We are all responsible for what we do (and what we DON’T do), including helping others. My family is a single income family (not by choice) and we barely make ends meet. Yet we still find the money to donate food to the local food shelf (many times during the year), my wife ALWAYS picks a couple of kid’s names off the local bank’s Angel Tree at Christmas time (so we can help these kids to enjoy the holiday like everyone else, and they usually ask for stuff like clothes, a new coat, maybe a toy or two). That is about all my budget will allow without totally collapsing. Not sure what to make of that particular comment from Mike. (*Shakes head*)