Citizen journalism is a form of fascism waiting to happen

April 23, 2007 7:43 PM

Citizen journalism is a form of fascism waiting to happen, suggests InfoWorld columnist Ephraim Schwartz.
posted by stbalbach (55 comments total)

In order to believe this the inherent assumption is that the current system is not facist. Thats not something im willing to believe apriori.
posted by Rubbstone at 7:49 PM on April 23, 2007

Seems to me that the Media Machine we enjoy today is a "form of fascisim waiting to happen," just without relying completely on the direct contribution from 'citizens'.
posted by Curry at 7:54 PM on April 23, 2007

there's an axe with a bundle of sticks tied around its shaft, which represents the force of community authority which can't be broken, because the plurality of the will to use the force of government to oppress some makes it stronger

for the younger folks we could say, it wasn't always that way, that's the centrality of the power, whether the axe is given to the children or the pawns, the idea is that there will be a motive on the streets that we will tell some people that their dress is wrong, their music is wrong, they are holding their head/hips wrong, they make the wrong associations, they are wrong, immoral, evil, corrupt, etc

not being able to exist in the community in peace, the community wants to delete you, extra judicial

hey I learned about it at the wikipedia big ups to the internet
posted by nervousfritz at 7:57 PM on April 23, 2007 [2 favorites]

What kind of testing or proof would you require, Rubbstone? In any event, I'm not sure that the flaws of traditional journalism have much relevance to whether or not "citizen journalism" poses risks.

I think Schwartz makes good points. Perhaps the biggest threat to liberty will not be the state recording what its citizens do, but citizens keeping tabs on each other. Why worry about the eye in the sky when there's a million "private" eyes around you in the form of camera-phones, with users who already show no compunction about recording and sharing anything they see fit, consent or no.
posted by modernnomad at 8:04 PM on April 23, 2007

I disagree. Cults of personality form, totalitarian leaders draw people to them by playing to their fears and prejudices, then mobilize them to smash dissent and grab power. But let's face it, Hitler and Mussolini did that before we had TV.

Come on, in many instances, what are the thought leaders going to do? Hitler and his brownshirts would burn down your freakin' house. Some angry blogger flames you? If, as unlikely as it sounds, his posts drive his followers to go over to your house and burn it down... remember what happened to Tom Metzger. When the neo-fascist rantings start inspiring dunderheads to commit violence, lawsuits and prosecutions follow.

When all is said and done, this is just another communications medium. Could the next Hitler find his power base on YouTube? Sure. But so could the next Jesus.
posted by semifamous at 8:06 PM on April 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

I guarantee at some point some local citizen journalist will ask why Mr. Jones down the street doesn't put out a flag on July 4th. What's wrong with him anyway? Or why does that guy with the funny accent never say hello to me? What's he hiding?

People have been able to do this already for quite some time, whether by opening their mouths and speaking or through ridiculous neighborhood papers and meetings or whatever.

To my ears, "citizen journalists" and "thought leaders" sound like words straight out of a George Orwell novel.

That's weird.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Yep.

...

Not that bloggers aren't thoroughly capable of doing ill, but I don't see how what this article brings to the table.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:08 PM on April 23, 2007

DLOE?

Meh, what this reminds me of is the fact that, in today's society at least, the fact that people don't have a fucking clue what fascism entails will not permit their utter ignorance to get in the way of throwing the term around like red paint as a fur coat convention.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:11 PM on April 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

So with that in mind, let me offer a very cynical point of view: Citizen journalism is a form of fascism waiting to happen.

Now I know fascism requires the centralization of power, and that would appear to be the opposite of citizen journalism. But think of dark historic times such as the Salem witch trials or Hitler's rise to power.

They both started with the rantings of individuals, but somehow those individuals became "thought leaders," and around them coalesced a central organization made up of like-minded individuals.

I'm saying citizen journalism, where nonprofessionals report on and write the news, will devolve over time. Citizen journalism will become a platform for so-called thought leaders to vent their biased, possibly hateful opinions.

You know who else had a blog?

That's right . . .
posted by jason's_planet at 8:15 PM on April 23, 2007

DLOE?

Meh, what this reminds me of is the fact that, in today's society at least, the fact that people don't have a fucking clue what fascism entails will not permit their utter ignorance to get in the way of throwing the term around like red paint as a fur coat convention.

Yep, not discounting myself



What kind of testing or proof would you require, Rubbstone? In any event, I'm not sure that the flaws of traditional journalism have much relevance to whether or not "citizen journalism" poses risks.

I think Schwartz makes good points. Perhaps the biggest threat to liberty will not be the state recording what its citizens do, but citizens keeping tabs on each other. Why worry about the eye in the sky when there's a million "private" eyes around you in the form of camera-phones, with users who already show no compunction about recording and sharing anything they see fit, consent or no.

I don't think Schwartz makes any points that suggest that citizen jounalism is any more prone to Fascism than corporate journalism. If there susceptible to the same degree the question is trivial .
posted by Rubbstone at 8:17 PM on April 23, 2007

so ... who wants to start making a list of enemies? ... anyone?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:19 PM on April 23, 2007

So his only evidence is a motorcycle listserv where people discussed politics? Sounds to me like the fascism of "staying on topic."
posted by imposster at 8:25 PM on April 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

"Citizen Journalists?" No thanks. I'll stick to getting my news from Gay Prostitutes with ties to The White House, thank you very much.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:41 PM on April 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

I agree that "citizen" journalism is Fascism, insofar as "citizen" journalism refers to the RNC swift-boating its perceived ideological enemies by making it profitable for corporate media outlets to spread Republican smear stories, falsehoods, lies and misinformation under the cover of "citizen" journalism.

It is a dishonest populist tactic of rabble rousing, done under the false pretense of grassroots activity.

But that's not what the author of this piece is referring to — although the RNC's activities have been much more insipid and damaging to American democratic ideals.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:41 PM on April 23, 2007

The single greatest and most widespread tendency towards fascism in this country is not citizen journalism (!) or even the Republican Party (it is, however, symptomatic), but the privatization of the public sphere. From neighborhood associations to Blackwater mercenaries to private shopping malls with private security, to the corporatization of small towns and the destruction of independent economic activity and therefore the freedoms that are fought for and preserved only in societies where there is a stable, viable middle class, all these are greater indicators of fascism to me than the rise of "citizen journalism," which is a bit of a straw horse anyway (a few reputations ruined by YouTube does not a revolution make.)
posted by bukharin at 8:48 PM on April 23, 2007 [2 favorites]

Heh, Fuzzy Monster. I still don't know why Jeff Gannon wasn't a bigger deal. Karl Rove is such a bad, bad boy.
posted by bukharin at 8:50 PM on April 23, 2007

I wonder what Gannon charges NOW that his secret is out?

How much is a VD from the worst administration in history worth?
posted by Balisong at 8:54 PM on April 23, 2007

Meet John D'oh: Michelle Malkin is Watching You

Populism, Malkin style
posted by homunculus at 9:20 PM on April 23, 2007

Fuck. The White House Correspondents Dinner is far more "a form of fascisim waiting to happen" than citizen journalism is. Didn't we just see that coziness in action during the last 6 years?

Yes. Yes, we did.
posted by mediareport at 9:21 PM on April 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

Wait, if we're already operating under a fascist ruler and citizen journalism goes fascist then won't the two cancel each other out and be transported to another dimension.

I understand his point but I kind of feel like he's starting his hand-wringing waaaaay too early on this one.
posted by fenriq at 9:37 PM on April 23, 2007

Journalists remain a voice of reason and a moderating voice...To my ears, "citizen journalists" and "thought leaders" sound like words straight out of a George Orwell novel.

Yeah, asshole, because if there's one thing Orwell argued for passionately, it's that the mass media was a "voice of reason" and that the public was too dumb to figure it out. This is the guy who fought for the anarcho-syndicalists in the Spanish Civil War.

What a fucktard. Maybe he should review Orwell's preface to Animal Farm before he continues to produce this garbage, which is anyways basically a vulgar adaptation of Walter Lippmann adapted for the internet age.
posted by limon at 9:56 PM on April 23, 2007 [2 favorites]

I wanted to come into this thread and ream this Ephraim Schwartz guy a new butthole. Blogging and Journalling is the antithesis of fascism. Voice of the People. That's not fascism. Fascism dismisses individual freedom in favor of not the community but the State. If anything, Citizen Journalism has more of a risk of turning into socialism, nazism, communism, and a few other isms.

Then i remembered Mike Daisey. Eighty-seven people just walked out. Didn't want to talk about it. Didn't want to express anything other than silence. They just shunned him. Eighty-seven people thinking with one brain. Daisey likened it to a flock of birds. One goes and they all go.

And if 86 people are all looking up to this one guy enough to do what he does when he does it like they're all playing a near telepathic Simon Says game? That could turn into fascism.

But the Citizen Journal thing isn't a bunch of people thinking with one brain. It's a whole bunch of street corners and someone' shouting at each one of them, and you can opt to stop by a given street corner and listen to whatever's going on there, then you surf on. Maybe if all these street corner weirdoes were somehow manipulated into saying the same thing for the benefit of the State, and dissention was squelched down, maybe then this guy would have something.

Journalists, whether under the tenure of Ben Franklin or Belo Corporation, don't dictate policy. The Fourth Estate can inform, educate, elucidate, parrot, or ignore government policy, but it can't dictate. It can be dictated to, and choose the consequences of accepting or not accepting said dictation. That's it.

If it starts dictating policy, it ceases being journalism. Nature abhors a vacuum, so by the time that happens, something else will come along to take it's place and be the new journalism.

In fact, I think that's what's happening now. Blogging is replacing more conventional journalism not because it's a predecessor to fascism or mob rule, but because the masses want to know, information wants to traverse freely, and the conventional news media has stopped being trustworthy, so the truth is seeking other avenues of travel.

Of course... So are lies. However, that's nothing new.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:13 PM on April 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

so ... who wants to start making a list of enemies? ... anyone?

Isn't that MetaFilter's whole raison d'être?
posted by the_bone at 10:14 PM on April 23, 2007

Having not read the fucking article, I feel obliged to reply.

If each and every blog were controlled by competing corporate interests whose minions patrolled said blogs for content, then, yeah, fascist as fuck.

But a bunch of dumbasses yammering into the void neither shapes nor directs anyone's opinion about anything.

OK. Now I've read the article, and my point still stands. If your town of 300 people has an anti-zombie policy, you are not prohibited from launching a Zombies'R'Us website. Admittedly, you might have hordes at your door threatening to burn your house, but at least you'll have some zombies with which to defend yourself.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:35 PM on April 23, 2007

"But a bunch of dumbasses yammering into the void neither shapes nor directs anyone's opinion about anything."

What matters is whether they get Big Money behind them: Hitler's fucktarded ravings were subsidized by the likes of Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush and Henry Ford, but I can't even get Mefite notables such as "pyramid termite" to donate to my cause. It's so UNFAIR!1!
posted by davy at 11:38 PM on April 23, 2007

Writing an article like this is akin to being a proffesional troll. Or trying. What a douche.
posted by my homunculus is drowning at 1:25 AM on April 24, 2007

The thing that gets me when people poke this particular anthill is the justification via finger-pointing, like it's okay for a legion of Wordpress-fueled 'tards to pretend there's a genuine scientific controversy over global climate change because Dan Rather didn't know shit about the history of electric typewriters on USAF bases.

Journalism has always been biased. It's up to the reader to approach news intelligently. The compact an ethical journalist effectively makes with a reader isn't to "show both sides." It's to present a perspective strengthened by legitimate investigation. It means that the journalist also employs context to situate his or her perspective, so that even if she wants you to think global warming is hogwash, the article reviews the mainstream before putting emphasis on the critique.

Do bloggers do this? Mostly, no. Mainstream journalists? It's back and forth, but they are ultimately accountable to professional standards and broad-based criticism. Ultimately, the pro-blogger/citizen journo arguments seem to be based more on lowered expectations about discourse than positive assertions about what these people can actually tell us about the world.

Fascism? Funny that an example involving Rathergate is relevant.
posted by mobunited at 1:50 AM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

but they are ultimately accountable to professional standards and broad-based criticism.

Really? In circumstances where journalists are a closed circle, defining their own supposed professional standards, and rejecting broad-based criticism from outside their circle, I find it hard to believe that we're seeing any true accountability.

Ultimately, mainstream journalists, in general, seem to believe that interviewing one person from column a and one from column b is really an effective form of research. And don't even get me started on their susceptibility to professional PR.

That said, if Schwartz had been a little less hyperbolic about his point, it might have made more sense to a lot of people. It's certainly true that groups of citizen journalists can be fronts for nefarious interests. But to me that's a separate issue from his conclusion, that only professionals should be (allowed to?) "report" on interesting stories.
posted by miss tea at 4:43 AM on April 24, 2007

You know what else is fascist? Voting.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:57 AM on April 24, 2007

"but they are ultimately accountable to professional standards and broad-based criticism."

C'mon, stop letting them frame the argument. Reporters ARE NOT professionals. The traditional media DO NOT adhere to standards. Reporters - excuse me, journalists - didn't even have undergrad degrees until college-bound suburban kids decided they wanted to become Woodward and Bernstein.
posted by klarck at 5:26 AM on April 24, 2007

I was prepared to go along with the premise, since I'm pretty skeptical about what most often passes for "citizen journalism," but the column was so crappily written, and so devoid of argument, that I'm forced to conclude that the guy has no idea what he's talking about. And I wasn't even part of the Harley-Davidson Riders forum that he bitches about.
posted by OmieWise at 5:28 AM on April 24, 2007

I don't think citizen journalism is interesting enough to be fascism. Although all the nervous excitement here does suggest that it's some kind of echo chamber.

BTW, Klarck, if you want to be semantically pedantic, the only real professionals are those with professional qualifications - doctors, lawyers, accountants etc.

But the argument that by and large journalists who do it for a living adhere to higher standards than those who don't is of course true. By and large they're better at it too. This really should come as no surprise. It's true of almost everything.
posted by rhymer at 5:36 AM on April 24, 2007

So, the decentralization of an entrenched institution that refuses to call demagogues demagogues is going to lead to... the new decentralized journalists becoming demagogues?

Awesome. I'd best go get me one of them newfangled phones what can make videos.
posted by Mayor West at 5:38 AM on April 24, 2007

C'mon, stop letting them frame the argument. Reporters ARE NOT professionals. The traditional media DO NOT adhere to standards. Reporters - excuse me, journalists - didn't even have undergrad degrees until college-bound suburban kids decided they wanted to become Woodward and Bernstein.

You know I think that movement has actually led to lower quality journalism.
posted by Rubbstone at 7:15 AM on April 24, 2007

"UHHHUH FREEDOM OF SPEACH IS GUNNA CAUSE TRUBBLE SO WE'D BETTER CUT IT OUT RITE GUYS???/"
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 7:19 AM on April 24, 2007

So the response is basically the specious argument I pointed out in the first place?

Anyway, the irony is really that these elitist, nasty corrupt journalists have, as an institution, set the standards by which you judge them.

Take:


C'mon, stop letting them frame the argument. Reporters ARE NOT professionals. The traditional media DO NOT adhere to standards.

Actually, they are and do. Amazingly, the principles of proper sourcing and attribution, along with many other things, did not tumble, fully formed as a turd, from the backside of somebody at Powerline or DailyKos.

(And who the hell is "them?" And why the hell are ALL CAPS de rigeur in this discussion in lieu of, well, discussion?)

This of course is leaving aside that fact that 90% of journalistic blogs are basically MSM parasites anyway. They have no content without a mainstream feed.

Sure, there could be such a thing as responsible citizen journalism. There just seem to be too many citizens for whom avoiding responsibility is the whole point.

I'd love it if somebody point me to some kind of popular citizen journalists' ethics group or something. But, of course, the "popular" part is the sticker, innit?
posted by mobunited at 7:30 AM on April 24, 2007 [3 favorites]

A little while back, Teresa Nielsen Hayden wrote an epic post title Why I blog, which dismantled Schwartz' argument before he ever made it.

I highly recommend reading the whole thing, but for the impatient, here's the money quote: "If the vast field of political weblogging has sprung up seemingly out of nowhere during the last few years, it’s because the underperforming professional journalists are leaving us with so much material to work with."
posted by adamrice at 7:45 AM on April 24, 2007

The sound of fapping in this thread is overwhelming.

C'mon, stop letting them frame the argument. Reporters ARE NOT professionals. The traditional media DO NOT adhere to standards.

This may be the most deliberately ignorant statement ever typed in Metafilter, and that's saying something. Oh, but you know that, because ZOMG the MSM LIED TO YOU TOTALLY THEY DIDN'T REPORT ABOUT ROVE OR THE EMAILS OR ZOMG. THEY'RE ALL HOOKERS AND WHOREZ, CROOKS AND LIARS TOLD ME SO. I HATE WHOMEVER FIRE DOG LAKE TELLS ME TO HATE.

What's really funny is that if you read the comments of both Powerline and Daily Kos, the one thing the mouth-breathers all agree on is that THE MSM IS EVIL AND NOT TELLING US THE WHOLE STORY. Can't y'all bond over that and create some sort of New Fascism? You know, one that has no elites, no ideology besides WE AIN'T GONNA BE TOLD WHUT TO DO. Some bizarre iconoclast sociopathy that's gripping you all. That's the fascism the guy's writing about: the tyranny of assholes WHO THINK THEY KNOW BETTER.

Of course, if not for the MSM, you fucking media parasites wouldn't have a fucking stone of outrage in either kidney. The only blogger or blog that does any original or independent reporting is Talking Points Memo; the rest are just leeching off that reporting you claim to hate so much. OH I LOATHE THAT I AM GETTING INFORMATION TO FUEL MY OWN BIASES.

Fuck off, you hypocritical twats.
posted by solistrato at 7:47 AM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

Is this the thread where we bash people for doing their jobs? Cuz I've got me a fierce hate-on for car mechanics. They're all crooks.

Reporters - excuse me, journalists - didn't even have undergrad degrees

Heaven forfend that reporters should be working people.

And how is it that most Mefites manage to distinguish contempt for the current American administration and their war from contempt for individual soldiers, and yet can't wrap their heads around the fact that there's a difference between Teh Corprit Meedya and the people that work for them?

If a certain journalist is sleazy and lazy, that's because they're a lazy sleaze, not because they're a journalist. And if most media companies are hiring more of them, that's because we, the people, are putting up with it.

"Citizen journalism" and "traditional" journalism aren't at odds with eachother, they're complementary parts - assuming a basic grounding in ethics - of a healthy democratic subculture. Ephraim is an idiot to suggest otherwise, yeah. But what does that say about those who are playing the same game, but just from the other side?
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:01 AM on April 24, 2007

Learn to preview... Learn to preview...

In response to solistrato, I just want to add that I pretty much do think THE MSM IS EVIL AND NOT TELLING US THE WHOLE STORY. There are people making a lot of money specifically off of not telling us the whole story.

I just don't think that gives me the right to tar and feather every single journalist, since the people making that money are at the top, and are often in constant low-level conflict with the people they employ.
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:09 AM on April 24, 2007

Another professional journalist bitching and moaning about those fucking amateurs daring to encroach on his territory. Except this time he's takin' it to the next level: OMG FASCISM!!!

This is the stupidest thing I've seen linked on MeFi in a while, and not a good advertisement for professional journalism. Stop jerking off, Ephraim, and go dig up a scandal or something.
posted by languagehat at 8:24 AM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think this guy is being a bit extreme, but I get his point.

I used to be in favor of the most direct democracy possible - where every bill, every decision was put up for a vote over the internet.

However, I clearly recall the time shortly after 9-11, when Joe Average Citizen was practically begging our politicians, "Please, take away all of our rights and liberties! SAFETY AT ALL COSTS!" Hell, we're still dealing with some of this mentality.

Mob rule is dangerous, and too much democracy can be a dangerous thing. Or, to put it more succinctly, "The last act of a democracy will be to elect a dictatorship."
posted by Afroblanco at 8:53 AM on April 24, 2007

guys, what color shirts should we wear? ... white? ... brown? ... silver? ... and our webblogs should match ... and we need a good, authoritative and reassuring typeface

fascism just isn't going to work in this country unless we color coordinate and accessorize

you'd think ephraim would have pointed that out
posted by pyramid termite at 8:54 AM on April 24, 2007

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps.
posted by adamvasco at 9:00 AM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

guys, what color shirts should we wear?

Blue. Unless you wanna talk about the shirts themselves. Then, grey.
posted by Greg Nog at 9:05 AM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

oh yes, i just love freedom. until it makes me nervous. then it has to stop.
posted by RedEmma at 9:07 AM on April 24, 2007

I like what Afroblanco said. I do think it's wise to be cautious - as much as I love the idea of 'power to the people', we can't go into it without awareness of the dangers and pitfalls.

Once upon a time I felt that journalism was a noble profession. If it's up to the citizens to do that job, lord help us - and this, coming from a pretty liberal person.
posted by rmm at 9:50 AM on April 24, 2007

Hands up anyone who's read a news article recently on a complex subject, written by pro journos, that wasn't a steaming pile of misunderstood crap?

Hands up anyone who's read a news article on a complex subject, written instead by a "citizen journalist" whose real-world expertise in the field about which they write allowed for an accuracy and insight that dwarfs the pros?


As the uncritical media cheerleading of the run-up to the Iraq war demonstrated, the professional free media is already proven to have the qualities that Schwartz argues we should be concerned about via citizen journalism.


I think he's wearing blinkers. Even taking his arguments as true, it remains unclear to me that the addition of citizen media should be worrisome.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:03 AM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Just about everything I see in the "real news" that is actual national news as opposed to local news, offbeat stories, and bullshit about celebrities or missing white girls I seem to have already seen hours, days, or months before on Metafilter, Digg, Wikipedia, from my friends, etc. (For my "real news" I check CNN and the Google news feed on my personalized Google often.)

Right now CNN can tell me that Pat Tillman's death was spun by the military, which I've probably known for over a year, that home sales are dropping, which I've known for months, that Kucinich is going to file for Cheney's impeachment, which I've known for a week. The only thing in Top Stories that I didn't already know about or couldn't expect (Bush made some statements against troop withdrawal today, but that's not really interesting news.) is that Kim Basinger DID NOT leak Baldwin's phone message.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 11:08 AM on April 24, 2007

Reporters - excuse me, journalists - didn't even have undergrad degrees until college-bound suburban kids decided they wanted to become Woodward and Bernstein.

And sadly, now, rather than aspiring to be Russell Baker or Sy Hersh, they want to all become Paula Zahn -- or more recently, I suppose, Jon Stewart, failing to notice that Stewart, y'know, probably reads. (Or maybe it's just that his writers do?)

I knew a junior in J-school at the University of Texas -- going for broadcast journo, natch -- who thought El Paso was a state. Texas native, too; her daddy was some sort of middle manager in Houston. She had the looks to be a Fox anchor, though.

(pardon my derail)
posted by pax digita at 11:14 AM on April 24, 2007

“The last act of a democracy will be to elect a dictatorship."
posted by Afroblanco

Yeah, I have to agree. This guy (in the article) apparently doesn’t distinguish his terms. Not all forms of authoritarianism is fascism. Mob rule is very dangerous. In part because of the obvious initial effects, but it’s the secondary effects which are more dangerous.
This sort of cacophony creates chaos. Which is what mobs do ultimately and it has a corrosive effect on any system. And in a chaotic environment people will cling to any form of order - the more stable looking the better.
edverb made a comment about the GOP playbookon scandal a bit back (can’t find it) which is apt here - denial, conditional acceptance, acceptance but recognition of partisanship attack, negation, retro-distortion - that essentially leads to a sort of information chaos where no one feels they can count on information or that there is no such thing as objective information and everything is contextual.
e.g.: the Iraq war is bad only because the dems are trying to gain power and all criticisms are contextualized as such.
Similarly - each ‘citizen journalist’ is not beholden to any form of objectivity and as such can deal with information from any contextual basis.
Typically most savvy web surfers can (as alluded to above) read something and determine it’s informational value and move on - many people are not that literate in this medium as of yet.
Most of the people reading MeFi are elites in that way.
That’s not meant to be a compliment (it is, but), it’s meant to point out that while you or I might read Joe’s Blog and notice his points are in pairity with whatever talking points and agenda, many people won’t - choosing instead to believe what’s convenient for them.
And that, in and of itself isn’t so dangerous.
But the concept that it’s ok to believe what you want because there is no objective context is reinforced by this environment, and that is dangerous. Because ultimately it creates chaos and folks will look for any port in that storm.
And certainly that chaos could be by design as much as having the browshirts cause trouble in the streets (which a leader promises to quell once elected).

(someone WANTS to be a Fox anchor? I thought they were spawned, like all bacteria)
posted by Smedleyman at 11:43 AM on April 24, 2007

This of course is leaving aside that fact that 90% of journalistic blogs are basically MSM parasites anyway. They have no content without a mainstream feed.

And about 100% of opinions writers don't break the issues the opine on. Who gives a fuck?
posted by Rubbstone at 11:59 AM on April 24, 2007

(Smed -- some girls will do the damnedest things in front of a camera, I guess. Back in the day, we used to say "Beauty times brains equals a constant.")
posted by pax digita at 12:05 PM on April 24, 2007

I should have read adamvasco’s link first:
“In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.”

(Pax - yeah. I’d rather see my daughter dealing heroin than anchoring Fox news. I was going to say I’d rather see her doing porn, but it’s redundant)
posted by Smedleyman at 12:16 PM on April 24, 2007

Buying The War: How did the mainstream press get it so wrong?
posted by homunculus at 10:04 AM on April 25, 2007

I'd like to thank everyone above who so completely contributed to confirming the point the article was trying to make. Way to all think as one, hive mind.
posted by tjvis at 2:32 PM on April 25, 2007