He llegit aquest article a la revista THE NATION sobre la darrera polèmica entorn a un blog (el que ja s'ha anomenat, genèricament, bloggates). En aquest cas fa referència a dos blocaires (Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister) que treballaven per la candidatura presidencial del demòcrata John Edwards, i que van penjar uns posts contra l'ultracatòlic Bill Donohue, i en general contra el "Cristfeixisme". Aquest va iniciar una campanya contra Edwards i inicialment aquest no els va despatxar. Finalment, però, els dos blocaires van dimitir voluntàriament per no perjudicar la candidatura del seu boss.
L'autor de l'article fa unes determinades consideracions sobre el rol dels blocs en la política que em semblen prou interessants. He extret alguns fragments que els podem discutir a classe, en la nostra darrera sessió (snif!):
(1) "The fight was not so much about religion or online obscenity as power. The netroots are the most aggressive, ascendant force in progressive politics, wielding more members, money and media impact than most liberal organizations."
(2) "Republicans cannot stop the donations or pressure the media into ignoring liberal bloggers. Instead, the GOP has tried to drive a wedge between Democratic leaders and the netroots by attacking bloggers--and their readers--as an extreme vitriolic embarrassment. "
(3) "Of course, the staffers' blog entries were uncivil. Donohue used them precisely because they were offensive to disinterested people. But the same goes for Donohue's past slurs, or Vice President Cheney dropping f-bombs on the Senate floor. Political debates are fierce, online and off."
(4) ""On our blogs, we all say things that might offend someone. Truth is, in life--in bars, in restaurants, in offices, on the phone--we all do that, only now there is...a permanent record," wrote Jeff Jarvis, director of CUNY's interactive journalism program, about the Edwards affair. When campaigns hire bloggers, he explained, they empower people who talk "without the veils of spin and PR and plastic discretion that politicians must learn." Yet the very skills that make a good blogger--provoking people with passionate, authentic opinions--are considered a handicap on the campaign trail. John Edwards took a bold step by hiring and standing by two liberal feminist firebrands, but he was not prepared for their written words to compete with his campaign message."
(5) "The best political blogs thrive on a discourse built in opposition to the mainstream; people gather to commune in ways not permitted by media and political gatekeepers. The vigorous dialogue is probably closer to voters' real conversations than politicians' sanitized talking points or the breathless speculation that passes for news today, from premature presidential polls to Anna Nicole Smith's death. In the end, campaigns prefer discipline over authenticity, and many bloggers do not. So Democrats should focus on tapping bloggers' energy while managing their passion--and disregard the self-serving complaints of their opponents."
Dijous en parlem.
