March 30, 2005
Blogs and Libertarianism
Joe Ganderlman of The Moderate Voice has a link-rich post entitled BLOGGING: Who's Afraid Of The Big, Bad Blogger?. In it he takes to task David Shaw's LA Times piece Do bloggers deserve basic journalistic protections? (in the interest of full disclosure, the blog chain I followed to arrive at David Shaw's piece is: Instapundit, where Glenn cites his own MSNBC article at www.glennreynolds.com, which cites Joe Gandelman's post, where Joe apparently was introduced to the Shaw piece via a Jack Shafer article in Slate).
David Shaw:
Given the explosive growth of the blogosphere, some judge is bound to rule on the question one day soon, and when he does, I hope he says the nation's estimated 8 million bloggers are not entitled to the same constitutional protection as traditional journalists — essentially newspaper, magazine, radio and television reporters and editors.
David Shaw is, of course, wrong. Joe Gandelman and Jack Shafer (and Glenn Reynolds, for that matter), all handily dispatch his argument. I am not here simply to join the chorus, but to add a few obsevations.
First, let's talk about architecture. What is the principle architecture of the MSM? I argue that it's patriarchal. What is the opposite of patriarchy (it's not matriarchy, which I would argue is a bird of the same feather)? I would argue that it's fraternity. To put this dichotomy is psychological terms, the dichotomy might be viewed as a parent-child paradigm versus an adult-adult paradigm. Technological terms? server-client versus peer-to-peer.
I cannot in any meaningful terms access David Shaw directly to rebut what I believe is a flawed argument on his part. I can write about his argument. I can send an email to him. But I cannot drag him to the public square and hash out with him for all to see why I think his argument is invalid.
The bilateral flow of information between him (and by extension the MSM) can be characterized as an elephant-sized vector flowing out to me, and a (highly filtered) mouse-sized vector flowing back to him (and again by extension the MSM). One might say that the MSM amplifiers are the only ones that can be turned up to eleven (hey, if you don't get it, too bad for you).
Juxtapose this with the blogosphere architecture. Here the amplifiers have no volume knobs. I have said as much way back in December 2003 in this post:
A web page has literally no signal degradation. Cnn.com, instapundit.com, and nopundit.com "tune in" with zero degradation anywhere in the world, be it a Manhattan office or a Borneo internet cafe (I'll leave it as a given that I am talking only about the technical aspects of degradation, not the political aspects, where degradation reaches 100% at a filtering device). Here is the kicker that no one gets: the size of the "amplifiers" creating all web page signals are exactly the same size. cnn.com does not have a bigger "amp" than instapundit.com, and instapundit.com does not have a bigger "amp" than nopundit.com. Figuratively and literally, the signal strengths are all absolutely equal. You do not need specialized ham radio equipment to "pull in" nopundit.com. Cnn.com, msnbc.com, time.com, thenation.com, etc., etc., etc., not one of them can "jam" nopundit.com's signal. It is equally easy to "pull in" every last one of the millions, perhaps billions, of web pages out there. All you need is one standardized receiver, the web browser.
Just a minute, you might say, clearly instapundit.com has the biggest amplifier of all. And I say back, not at all. Instapundit.com (and nopundit.com, and slate.com, and themoderatevoice.com, ...) are all performing in a miracle auditorium where one, ten, or a million people can all sit in the front row center seat, and not complain. The volume is the same: conversational level. And the bilateral flow of information is at parity. While some bloggers may have turned off comments and trackbacks (I would argue solely because of spammers), there is nothing that prevents Glenn Reynolds from visiting my site and commenting, if only via email (spam may yet drive me to this solution). We are peers in the peer-to-peer architecture sense: unequal in ability perhaps, but not in access.
One final thought before I go earn my daily bread. As a small-l libertarian, I am greatly heartened by the rise of the blogospere. Why? Again, let's look back at the architecture. Journalists have readers. Bloggers have ... bloggers! Again, the devil's advocate says: nonsense! Bloggers have blog readers (or lurkers, to dredge up old Usenet terminology). I am quite willing to admit that many blog readers are content to remain just that. But the Welcome Mat to join the blogging ranks is forever and always there. An intermediate rank between blogger and blog reader is blog commenter. Bloggers love good commenters! Bill Whittle credits getting his start as a commenter on Rachel Lucas' and Kim du Toit's sites. Frank Martin got encouragement as a commenter on Stephen Green's site. And Hugh Hewitt I believe has got be credited with encouraging more bloggers to get started than any other blogger with his Vox Blogoli series, where he introduces a discussion thread and vows to post a link to every response he receives.
So why does this hearten me as a libertarian? Because I want to be surrounded by empowered individuals. When I read a great post on Powerline, or Just One Minute, or Little Green Footballs, I can righteously walk away saying "Yeah, what he said!". Well that's pretty easy, isn't it? But for me to go from "what he said" to "what I say" requires traversing a huge gulf. People will read what you have to say, and many may not like what you say. To articulate your thoughts in writing takes focus, knowledge, and courage. Passivity (even well-informed passivity) takes no particular talent at all.
Another way of putting this is that the blog is a particularly well-suited tool for the libertarian, and, if not an ill-suited tool, at least not a very useful tool for the liberal. Why? Because the libertarian's wet dream is to live in a world of empowered, expressive adults (those who acknowledge that it is up to each individual to know what's good for themselves, even when it's "obvious" that there are those who don't). The liberal wet dream is to live in a caste society of parents (those who know what's good for everyone else) and children (victims who don't, and can't possibly, know what's good for themselves). Why anyone would want to be a "child" (or a "parent"!) is beyond me.
I guess to wind this back to the beginning, let me answer the question: why would the MSM fear or disparage the blogosphere? I don't really believe the David Shaw-type arguments I 've heard, even though I'm quite willing to acknowledge that the David Shaws of the MSM believe themselves. I believe it is because their collective role as patriarchal caretaker of news for the unwashed masses is being threatened. Well, let's be honest: it's not that this role is being threatened. It's gone.
Update: Trackback to Frank Martin regarding this post and Sissy Willis regarding hers.
Update 5/4/05: Trackback to the very generous Greyhawk @ Mudville Gazette. Greyhawk, I am signing the Pajamas Media agreement papers as we speak. This post, written over a month ago (and before PM was announced), speaks in a way to the mission of Pajamas Media.
Posted by nopundit at March 30, 2005 12:22 PM