reply to post by ~Lucidity
Your call for fact checking and the insidious way in which Kyra Phillips called for legal action are two entirely different things. Here is a snippet
from the article the O.P. linked, quoting Phillips:
Phillips wanted to go even further, asking if "there's going to come a point where something's going to have to be done legally" about
anonymous bloggers. Read more:
Andrew Breitbart is not an anonymous blogger. Sherrod has a real identifiable person in Breitbart, as well as other "journalists" who ran with this
story in order to seek remedy. Phillips has used the Breitbart/Sherrod incident to make the leap to attack anonymous bloggers. While anonymity
should not in anyway be an immunity from liability of libel charges, there is certainly an insidiousness to Phillips implications, and to be sure,
Phillips stopped just short of screaming "there should be a law", but also to be sure, at no point did she discuss the matter of libel. She did, at
the very end of that segment, concede that Sherrod had a case for defamation, which was barely heard as it was uttered underneath the yammering of
Roberts. However, that segment was not about Sherrod's strong case for defamation, it was an attack on anonymous bloggers.
No one needs the expertise of a lawyer in order to know if they have been libeled. Either a person has been libeled or they haven't. We turn to
attorneys for competent assistance of counsel, and that should be it. It is not up to attorneys to decide what is libel and what is not, that is up
to a jury.
I agree with you that we should all be more diligent about our fact checking. Ironically, you and I are involved in another thread regarding the
nature of facts. We should all hold each other to a higher standard when it comes to blogging, but Phillips hardly achieved that higher standard with
her ranting, and own willing ambiguity in regards to the facts. She seems to think her opinion matters more than the facts. Look at how Phillips
responded when Roberts said:
"Imagine what would have happened if we hadn't taken a look at what happened with Shirley Sherrod and plumbed the depths further and found out
that what had been posted on the internet was not in fact reflective of what she said." Read more:
And following that with a quote from that other talking head Andrew Keen who, in plugging his book; The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is
Killing Our Culture, (to which Phillips actually added "our economy, and our values", Phillips responds with:
But Phillips replied that the mainstream media "can't always do that."
The next paragraph of that articles continues with:
"There's going to have be a point in time where these people have to be held accountable," Phillips said. "How about all these bloggers that
blog anonymously? They say rotten things about people and they're actually given credibility, which is crazy. They're a bunch of cowards, they're
just people seeking attention." Read more:
(Ring Ring, Ring Ring) Hello? Hello Kettle? This is Pot, you're black! (Click)
While Phillips may not be anonymous, she is no doubt an attention seeker. Where Phillips hopes to take to task "these bloggers that blog
anonymously", for saying rotten things about people, she goes on to lump all anonymous bloggers in the same category, of whom she calls cowards.
Yeah, there's some real integrity for you. Where's the fact checking in that? What about all the anonymous bloggers who don't say rotten things
about people and instead just work at spreading a message of love, or peace? Are they cowards too? Apparently, Phillips doesn't care, and would
rather just lump all anonymous bloggers into the same group, and they're all mean spirited people who say rotten things about people, and are
Going back to Roberts addendum of Keen's subtitle, asserting that the internet was killing our economy and values, this is quite revealing, because
the internet has clearly opened up many new avenues in terms of economy, but what economy is getting killed by the internet is the market share of the
media. So, when Roberts says; "our economy", he is not including you and I, but is speaking of a very specific club. Further, where he Roberts
also hopes to link the internet to the killing of our values, it is telling that later he likens it to a giant bathroom wall where anyone can
anonymously write something bad about another person.
People have been writing on the walls of public bathrooms for far longer than there has been an internet, so this mean spirited posting anonymously on
the internet is not a killing of our values, but more a reflection of them, or at the very least, a reflection of those values of that anonymous
poster. Even further, the problem of mean spirited remarks being used to damage a persons reputation are as old as the republic is, and in an earlier
post I made mention of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was fatally wounded in a duel between he and Aaron Burr that was spurred on by the journalistic
defamation of Burr made by Hamilton. That defamation pretty much ended Burr's political career. More recently, there was the "trial by media" of
that had nothing at all to do with anonymous bloggers. The main stream media
has been playing the same "gotcha" game that many anonymous bloggers do, and they were the ones who set the bar for this crap.
It is the spirit of the times Lucidity, but keep fighting the good fight, and keep calling for a higher standard, and I will stand by you and do my
best to attain that standard myself.
[edit on 24-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]