Conversely, people looking to say that new media and citizen contributions to news-gathering are of little value point to some ramblings on 'Have Your Say', blogs about kittens, crackpot conspiracy theorists and angry gun freaks.
And guess where he's got "angry gun freaks" linked to?
It appears self-impressed Martin Belam still doesn't grasp things--or if he does, you and I probably don't even want to know about it...
10 comments:
While they have the descriptor of "angry gun freak" right :), obviously they have never actually READ your blog and the level of investigation you do which makes them look like HS freshmen.
I prefer "frustrated freedom freak," myself. It's more than just guns, and anger has connotations of "destructive" and "unjustified."
Well, I had to deconstruct his writings with a rather long article that I posted in his comments. I have a funny feeling that he may block it, so here it is for WoG readers:
Martin Belam said: "Conversely, people looking to say that new media and citizen contributions to news-gathering are of little value point to some ramblings on .... angry gun freaks."
Excuse me, but upon what basis do you assert that WoG represents "little value" in the realm of news-gathering? Is this based upon your own knowledge or any specific, articulable facts that demonstrate that WoG has "little" news-gathering value? If so, please provide them. Any writer or journalist knows that it improper to make inflammatory assertions without providing logical and factual analysis to back up the assertions. Please clarify. Perhaps, your assertion was an editorializing value judgment, reflecting your own biases, that was not so carefully wrapped up to look like valid research, analysis, and reporting. Given the content of your article, is the irony lost on you?
In your presumably non-exhaustive list of allegedly low-value blogs, I noticed that your blog was prominently missing (although further down in your blog you did refer to those which "...are simply boring" - a freudian slip, perhaps?), is that to infer in a not-so subtle way that by virtue of its exclusion from the "bad" list that your blog must represent the "good" type of blog, worthy of being classified as "journalistic?" Note: please refer back to the prior paragraph to more carefully consider this proposition.
Also, excuse me, but upon what basis do you label WoG as "angry gun freaks." Clearly the word "gun" is self-explanatory. However, there appears to be some issue with the other two words you used.
Let's look at the word "angry." Anger is a normal human emotion. It is a protective instinct designed to protect against danger. So, do you have a problem with anger? I'm not talking about misplaced or unjustified anger. Do you get angry when you see people in the third world denied of their human rights? I do, and so should you. Anyone who does not get angry at the denial of anyone's human rights is, well, not human. Well, I've got news for you. There is very credible academic literature by researchers with highly specialized knowledge (whom you would assuredly label as "domain 'experts'") that clearly demonstrates that the right of self-defense is a human right possessed by ALL humans. The concept of guns is a logical extension of this human right. Remember, when any human right is infringed, a decent human gets angry. (Oh, by the way, since you mentioned The Sex Pistols, I hope you know that one of their former members famously claimed in a 1980's song that "Anger is an energy." It really is true! He also said in that same song that "The written word is a lie." You might want to ponder the meaning of this.)
Now, let's look at the word "freak." Why the name calling? Upon what basis do you label WoG and its participants as "freaks?" Is this another one of your value judgments? Why are you so judgmental? You failed to define or clarify your usage of the term and how relates to WoG. This is what is known as "name calling" and stereotyping. This is hardly an attribute of one who is possessed of intellectual rigor and well-reasoned analysis. Please explain your position.
In conclusion, I am not an angry person, but one thing that does make me angry is the presence of ignorant dolts, lacking in intellectual rigor and logical reasoning, who replace research and logic with value judgments and who confuse name-calling and stereotyping as journalistic skill. Finally, if you are going to prominently list on your CV that you are "...an excellent communicator," one might recommend that you live up to the claim.
Tell me about the gun dream again. Okay, doc, I dream I'm holding the gun in my hands. Do you like the gun? No. Do you hate the gun? No. So how do you feel about the gun? Well, I guess you could say I feel ambivalent about the gun. At the word "ambivalent" the doctor covered his eyes with both hands and said, "If you only knew how lonely it's been, with no one understanding, no one caring"..... " Listen, when you have a sex dream, where you beat some dame up and ravish her and then burst into tears because you don't know what else to do, how do you feel then?" the doctor said. "That's the gun dream" said Yossarian. "Oh, I see", said the doctor, with icy hostility. "We won't need to continue this any further, you may rejoin your unit, and you better complete every damned mission,you freak". Hat tip to Mr. Heller, who has given me, and countless others head and side aches from laughing so hard at "Catch-22". My point being, is that we could spout utter nonsense to the anti's and it wouldn't make the slightest difference in their assesment or their reply. And why should it? They come at us with utter nonsense, and logic means nothing to them. It's as if we're living in this country with a large number of dangerous idiots, who at any moment,for no reason or any, will imprison,beggar,humiliate,and destroy us, depending on their latest whim,feeling,or mood. I try to be as wise as serpent, and as innocent as a dove. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the range.
My two cents:
I too read David Codrea's WOGs every day.
David is a featured columnist in a national magazine that has been in continuous circulation for more than 50 years.
Moreover David is a patriot and involved and concerned citizen.
Wow, I am impressed. Thanks, guys--particulalry anon for that devastating deconstruction.
I'm a little less angry now, but have offset that by getting a little more freaky.
I just did a piece on getting a link from The Huffington Post today, and was surprised at how little traffic it generated. I see even less incoming hits from Mr. Experienced Internet Consultant, so let's hope he does a better job generating interest for his clients than we've seen in his two at-bats here.
Here's mine:
I read David Codrea's blog second every day, as soon as I first clear my email inbox.
I don't always agree with either David or his regular posters, even to the point of vitriolic argument. But I still read him daily, and your backhanded swipe of him as 'angry' is both off-point and gratuitous, if for no other reason than there are many much 'angrier' bloggers out there.
Since the American gun issue is something I know about, and you've misstated it, I can only look dubiously on the rest of your missive. And considering two facts, 1) the UK has banned all guns, and 2) you don't live there anymore, I would have to conclude that you agree with David's ongoing position, that free people have the right to be secure in their persons.
'Frustrated' or 'outraged' would have been both more accurate and more honest. Not that that matters to you, being merely a blogger.
And claiming better training in the Mother Tongue falls flat when you pull nonsense such as this.
Finally, since an earlier comment wasn't published, I'll cross-post this over at War on Guns so that it does see the light of day, just as that poster did.
PS: A smart man chooses his battles. This is not one you want. Take a look at the Huffington Post for their gun-control postings and more importantly the comments. You haven't a chance on this one. I steer clear of the gun issue in the UK, and unless you plan on moving here, I suggest you apply the same discretion to the Great American Gun Debate.
WoG is the first blog I read everyday too. I can quit anytime I want, I swear I can..........
Martin Belam posted a response in the comments of the original article. Here is a cross post of my answer to him.
Thanks for responding. Here is my response to your response.
"The anonymous person who cross-posted their comment to both sites..."
I am truly happy that you published my post, and I am glad you felt moved to explain the delay in posting comments.
"I'm always happy to put my name to what I write..."
That comment came out of nowhere and could be taken as a swipe at anonymous posters - almost like you are trying to create the implication that an anonymous poster (that being me) is somehow less than a poster with a name. Is it really appropriate to judge others based on your standards? Some people are naturally more private, just as some people are naturally more public and open. It is important to accept people as they are even if they operate differently from you. It would also be rather hypocritical to operate a site that allows guests to post anonymously and to then criticize those who availed themselves of your offer.
Some of the most important writings of the American revolution were published anonymously. Plenty of great authors (and journalists) around the world have and still do publish under pseudonyms (e.g.; "Samuel Blythe" and "Spengler" of the Asia Times). Sometimes people find themselves in life circumstances that prevent them from speaking as freely as they would prefer, and they can't use their own name. Welcome to reality. Instead of harping on this non-issue, please feel free to engage in debate over the issues that were raised in my original anonymous posting. Some people might think that you are raising non-issues in order to distract from answering the real issues. (For a generalized discourse on the importance of anonymity in democratic society and the internet from an American perspective, please see "http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity".)
Don't get me wrong, when people engage in threats, intimidation, etc. and hide behind the mask of anonymity, that can be a major problem. WoG participants are very familiar with these types of people because they periodically appear on WoG and try to start trouble. But, that is not at issue here. In the pursuit of truth, the only things that matter are reason, logic, and facts. Name, race, color, culture, or country are irrelevant.
"I guess the point I was making kind of got lost in translation - I was arguing that it was wrong for mainstream journalists to sneer at blogs like David's..."
Yes, it is wrong for mainstream journalists to sneer at blogs, but that is not the way it came across at all with regard to WoG! You referenced WoG specifically to make the opposite point - that WoG represents the type of blog that is viewed as being "of little value," and your own use of name-calling bolstered this as a position that you held when you labeled us as "angry gun freaks." Not surprisingly, this generated a vigorous response from WoG.
"Sadly, I figure that the immediate rush for that audience to come trolling over here tends to bolster Andrew Keen's arguments about 'teh evil of da internetz' rather than my own."
WoG fans did not come over to, as you suggest, "troll." There's that name-calling, again. We made well-reasoned and on-topic responses to what appeared to be a backhanded swipe at us. When you made that swipe, you gave us grounds to come over to your blog and respond to the attack. Engaging in vigorous, rational debate and defending WoG's reputation is *not* trolling. If you do not want us posting to your blog then do not give us grounds to do so. Live and let live.
(I am going to cross post this back to the original thread on WoG. Don't take it the wrong way. I just want to make it easily available for WoG readers for as long as Mr. Codrea chooses to keep it on his site.)
Anon-very cool--thank you for doing this. I'm going to give it its own post tomorrow.
Post a Comment