Barringtonia
27-05-2008, 08:35
A fairly interesting article by Lee Spiegel, who was caught praising himself on his own blog under an assumed name. He gives some background and reasons, I'm sure it's a little tl:dr for some so here's the link (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,2282309,00.html) and then a few excerpts - if I'm in the mood, I might do a fancy poll.
Unlike any other magazine, newspaper, website or blog that I have ever heard of, the New Republic decided not to filter or edit the online comments.What followed was a curious set of revelations.
The most impassioned, as well as the most hysterical and abusive respondents, were usually defenders of conventional taste. Strange, I know. The web is supposed to be the great outlet for dissent, but I was screechingly condemned when, for example, I suggested that Daily Show host Jon Stewart was too sarcastic to be funny, and that he pandered to his demographic. There were so many negative responses to that column that the New Republic's server broke down.
The real danger confronting criticism on the web is that, in the name of "anti-elitism" and "the voice of the people", real dissent (which looks elitist because it is rare) will be drowned out by posturing mobs. So the question is not whither the authority of the critic, but whither the power of resistance that the best criticism represents? And what happens when established critics who take on established taste start trying to please their detractors, in order to save themselves?
Essentially, being overwhelmed by anonymous criticism, he used a puppet to fight back against the more abusive criticism because he felt that using his own name delegitimized his message since it would be seen as him defending himself.
I sort of disagree and find that people, when faced with criticism of their opinions, whether in forums, blogs or wherever, tend to take it personally and lose the perspective that people can read and comprehend for themselves, there'll always be people who disagree but people can make up their own minds. Yet I can understand his frustration in feeling he had no means of addressing these opinions and feeling his opinion was being suppressed by the weight of the mob.
So, is the Internet leading to homogenization of public opinion or greater variety of public opinion. Does it encourage dissent or suppress it? Is it gathering different minds together or is it simply dividing opinions into say those who agree with the overall sentiments of NSG compared to those of, say, Stormfront.
Unlike any other magazine, newspaper, website or blog that I have ever heard of, the New Republic decided not to filter or edit the online comments.What followed was a curious set of revelations.
The most impassioned, as well as the most hysterical and abusive respondents, were usually defenders of conventional taste. Strange, I know. The web is supposed to be the great outlet for dissent, but I was screechingly condemned when, for example, I suggested that Daily Show host Jon Stewart was too sarcastic to be funny, and that he pandered to his demographic. There were so many negative responses to that column that the New Republic's server broke down.
The real danger confronting criticism on the web is that, in the name of "anti-elitism" and "the voice of the people", real dissent (which looks elitist because it is rare) will be drowned out by posturing mobs. So the question is not whither the authority of the critic, but whither the power of resistance that the best criticism represents? And what happens when established critics who take on established taste start trying to please their detractors, in order to save themselves?
Essentially, being overwhelmed by anonymous criticism, he used a puppet to fight back against the more abusive criticism because he felt that using his own name delegitimized his message since it would be seen as him defending himself.
I sort of disagree and find that people, when faced with criticism of their opinions, whether in forums, blogs or wherever, tend to take it personally and lose the perspective that people can read and comprehend for themselves, there'll always be people who disagree but people can make up their own minds. Yet I can understand his frustration in feeling he had no means of addressing these opinions and feeling his opinion was being suppressed by the weight of the mob.
So, is the Internet leading to homogenization of public opinion or greater variety of public opinion. Does it encourage dissent or suppress it? Is it gathering different minds together or is it simply dividing opinions into say those who agree with the overall sentiments of NSG compared to those of, say, Stormfront.