BCT Editorial – 8/27/06

This page was last updated on August 27, 2006.

Debasing the Web; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 27, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Political zealots are turning the Internet’s virtues into vices

[RWC] As you read this editorial, you will figure out “zealot” covers anyone not in the mainstream media.

“Not content with destroying our representative democracy, political zealots have turned to debasing the integrity of the Internet.”

[RWC] In this sentence, the Times would normally use “ideologue” instead of “zealot,” but zealot is the theme word for this editorial. As used by the Times, an ideologue means someone who has guiding principles and rarely compromises those principles.

“The beauty of the Internet is that it has democratized information. Newspapers, magazines and television and radio stations, owned by corporations or wealthy individuals, no longer control the flow of information. All that’s needed now is a PC, access to the Internet and the time and dedication for anyone to set up a blog, meetup, chat room or Web site.

“But one reason our founding fathers established a representative democracy is that a pure democracy is prone to uncontrolled excess, and that is what is happening in regard to politics and the Internet.

“In the hands of irresponsible political zealots, the Internet’s virtues become vices. Photographs can be doctored and be passed off as portraying actual events. Quotes can be taken out of context and replicated endlessly. Unsourced opinion can replace fact. Plant one good lie and the damage is done as it is passed along as the gospel truth.”

[RWC] Everything described in this paragraph also happens in the mainstream media on a routine basis.

For example, it was the “zealots” that uncovered the recent doctored and staged fauxtographs distributed by the mainstream media (NY Times, Reuters, et cetera) intended to make Israel look bad.

“Quotes can be taken out of context and replicated endlessly?” Come on, guys, these are the lifeblood of “news” stories, columns, editorials, et cetera in the mainstream media.

There’s no difference between an “unsourced opinion” and the “anonymous source” constantly used by the mainstream media.

“Plant one good lie and the damage is done as it is passed along as the gospel truth?” You mean like the myth of tax cuts for “the rich” on the backs of “the poor?” How often have we seen this BS in Times editorials alone? What about the Hurricane Katrina coverage in which the mainstream media reported rape and murder gangs rampaging in the Louisiana Superdome?

If the Times is really worried about lies “passed along as the gospel truth,” why doesn’t it fact check letters to the editor?

“It’s different with newspapers, magazines and TV and radio stations. It costs money to run political ads in newspapers, magazines and radio and television stations, and that usually has a sobering effect on individual excess. The organizations or individuals who place those ads are identified. Those who write news stories, columns and editorials are identifiable, not only personally, but institutionally as well.”

[RWC] Earth to the Times. It also “costs money to run political ads” on the Internet. Everyone I know has to pay for their e-mail and website hosting. It also “costs” personal time to write those ads, opinions, et cetera.

The editorial claims “those who write … editorials are identifiable, not only personally, but institutionally as well.” When was the last time you saw the author of an editorial identified? For the record, listing the names of the members of the Editorial Board doesn’t count.

“Meanwhile, the Internet is cheap and anonymous. Under normal circumstances, that’s a virtue. But in the hands of political zealots, it’s a terrible vice. The anything-goes atmosphere leads many individuals and institutions to believe they can trash anybody and anything with impunity.”

[RWC] I’m still waiting to see how there’s any practical difference between Internet “political zealots” and the mainstream media.

“For examples of this, check out FactCheck.org.”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. In an editorial telling us we can’t trust sources on the Internet, the author refers us to an Internet website?

“What’s happening on Wikipedia illustrates this perfectly. Wikipedia is the ideal of what the Internet should be, an on-line encyclopedia that can be edited and expanded by readers. Its founding premise is that people who know about a topic will add their knowledge to an entry, building an extensive information source online. It’s democracy in action on the Internet.

“The good that it can do is endless - and it’s being trashed.

“The Associated Press reports partisans from right and left are editing candidate information on Wikipedia biographical entries to gain political advantage.

“Its open-source approach allows contributors to use sites to push their versions of ‘the truth.’ The AP reports this manipulation is ‘straining Wikipedia’s strength as a reliable resource.’”

[RWC] No offense, but when did anyone with a shred of intelligence consider Wikipedia “a reliable source” when accuracy/truth mattered? It took me all of about five minutes to figure out not to use anything from Wikipedia without independent corroboration.

To be honest, though, I treat all reports from all sources the same way. Whether it’s an alleged “news” story, opinion column, editorial, et cetera, I always ask myself, “I wonder if that’s true.” The days are long gone when I accepted any article as factually accurate and properly presented.

“The end result of this abuse is an Internet version of Gresham’s Law, an economic theory that bad money will drive good money out of circulation. When so many political lies are being passed off as truth via the Internet, people won’t know what to believe - and end up believing none of it.”

[RWC] A foundation of Gresham’s Law is that government forces both “good” money and “bad” money to be accepted at the same value. No one forces us to assign the same level of credibility to all information sources.

The editorial didn’t explain how Internet lies are worse than the “many political lies … being passed off as truth” by the mainstream media.

Finally, the editorial doesn’t seem to give us credit for being able to figure out whom to believe/trust. If we can figure out we can trust newspaper A but not newspaper B, why shouldn’t we be capable of the same regarding Internet sources?