by Marko Balazevic
Ronald Eyerman, Professor of Sociology at Yale University was noted to say: "It makes a strong case for the democratic power of blogging and the Internet, a form of empowerment for the voiceless." Yet, are those who are voiceless voiced through blogosphere? Are they being represented or taking active voice? And if so, should we talk about a public sphere, although such disclosure, even when labeled is ultimately anonymous? These questions arise when one brings up the problems of freedom of speech and public sphere as they are reified through blogs.
In taking an editorial point of view into blogosphere, a thing that seems like a contradiction from the beginning because of inherent lack of editorial constraint and control in most of blogging, I am going to look into two similarly aimed, but very different forms of blogs.
Avaaz, meaning "voice" or "noise" in many Asian, Middle Eastern and Eastern European languages, is a civic organization advocating for political and civic action in issues such as environmental protection, defending human rights, preventing armed conflicts and promoting peace. It aims at augmenting the extent of global democracy and voicing global public opinion by raising awareness and inviting people to take action in helping global cause. Such a mission would be impossible just a few decades before, but today, utilizing the Internet and its unprecedented capabilities of networking, Avaaz is able to mobilize astonishing numbers of people while employing just a handful of staff members around the world. What is amazing about Avaaz and similar organizations is that they have a great impact and a number of successful campaigns, while relying solely on resources provided by the Internet, emails, blogs and vlogs.
Although they are a grassroots organization, relying on very common and available means of reaching their audience, their job is not easy. They have grown to astonishing 4.2 million members in just three years, and a major part of that success is understanding how their target audiences' attention span functions. Being able to transfer great impact while being concise is major part of their success. In that vein, their blog doesn't slide into a classical form of blogging, that implies a somewhat intimate first person point of view even when we are talking about very serious blogs. Blogs on Avaaz.org are packed with condensed information and efficiently utilized photographs and videos very similarly to Paper Tiger Televison, a pioneer in independent TV production.
Professor Rick Wolff, one of biggest critics of capitalist project today, has a more profiled and narrower blog audience. A Professor of Economics Emeritus at University of Massachusetts in Amherst, professor Rick is one of major voices of left-wing economic theory in the US. He has a prolific posting of short analysis articles on his Web site and on Monthly Review Magazine. They are ranging from domestic to global political and economic issues and are marked by un unequivocal Marxist tone. Professor Rick holds that there is an alternative to capitalism, that is not a communist utopia dressed up as socialism, as was the case with the former socialist bloc. While rejecting reminiscence of communism, he has a firm belief that Western capitalist societies create great social and natural debacles, with far reaching consequences. Along with Stephen Resnick, he is an advocate of post-Friedman economic paradigm that he sees emerging after the turmoil of 2008. His analysis doesn't suggest a bright future for the capitalist system because it is overstrained, there is no more space for growth of wages and credit debt, and according to him the golden years of consumerism are over.
What is significant about Rick Wolff is that he is a renowned economic expert, yet has a very unpopular political and economic outlook, at least in the US. That is a limiting factor to the impact and reception of his analysis. Yet, that seems to be the case with most profiled, expert blogs. Being blogs is what grants them more freedom and a necessary bias. That implies a loyal, but limited readership, which in most cases doesn't have to be persuaded. Allowing commentary on blogs might be a weak remedy for broadening, but in most cases the only people that post are the ones that a diehard supporters or the other extreme, so it usually turns into ugly mudslinging.
In both cases, blogs are not the sole means of expression, but they pose a very significant form of transferring the content. Having sometimes overlapping goals, these two blogs differ very much, mainly in the way they approach targeted audience. But what separates these blogs from thousands of other lay blogs that pretend to do the same job? How do we discriminate between experts and laymen? Subjectivity and bias are the quintessential traits of a blog. Lack of editorial restraint is what makes them blogs. But what separates them from the rest of the blogosphere is the genuine pretension on fact-based analysis and external credential, while not rejecting their bias and agenda. And that is fine with me. That is the reason why I read them.
No comments:
Post a Comment