Blog Rage

An excellent article this morning in the Washington Post concerning "blog rage", here Written by Jim Brady, executive editor of Post, concerning the Post's decision to remove the comments section of the paper's blogs. The Post published an article about the Jack Abramoff scandal, and some of the content was inaccurate. A correction was published. But that did not satisfy many bloggers, who evidently responded with some vile and obscene posts of their own.

Interestingly, Brady posits two causes of this. One, he says there is no blogosphere. He compares many blogs with echo chambers, where people only read blogs they agree with.

Why are people so angry? It was a mistake, it was corrected. Part of the explanation may be the extremely partisan times we live in. For all the good things it has brought our society, the Web has also fostered ideological hermits, who only talk to folks who believe exactly what they do. This creates an echo chamber that only further convinces people that they are right, and everyone else is not only wrong, but an idiot or worse. So when an incident like this one arises, it's not enough to point out an error; they must prove that the error had nefarious origins. In some places on the Web, everything happens on a grassy knoll.

He continues:

Another culprit in Web rage: the Internet's anonymity. It seems to flick off the inhibition switch that stops people from saying certain things in person. During the Howell flap, many of the e-mails I received that called me gutless, a coward or both were unsigned.

I enjoy reading blogs, and have some favorites. I do not like the "flaming" blogs, which seem to exist for the sole purpose of making fun of, or degrading a certain ideological or political expression. Or person. I like blogs that lead me to new insights, that do not merely serve up the talking point of the day, which do not always assume that common knowledge is so common, and who actually link to their sources. Above all, I like blogs where the content, the discussion, is mostly civil. We have enough problems in discussing controversial issues without adding kerosene to the fire by being personally insulting and vulgar.

I must confess that I do hang around, from time to time, in a San Francisco Giants online forum. Sometimes, the banter can get quite off-color, but it seems all in good fun. After all, it's only baseball. I admit that this is not an edifying place for me to hang out long, and it is a guilty pleasure. But it is a lot like when I go to the games with friends. "Why didn't he throw a strike there? Why did he throw home? Mercy! He swung at the first pitch. Again!" That kind of chatter goes well at ballgames, and on this ESPN forum.

However, to take the same tone, the same banter, and same comments and apply them to national or international issues, seems to me to not be helpful.

I am particularly disgusted with the comments directed towards the president. "Bush is a Moron" may provide a cheap laugh to some, but what is the purpose of making such a comment. Can we disagree with someone without calling them a moron? I mean, that worked on the elementary school playground. Well, perhaps the blogosphere is inhabited by prepubescent adults.

I admit my knowledge of the blogosphere is limited. I began my own blog at the encouragement of Hugh Hewitt, who was kind enough to email me back several times in response to my questions. (I still wish Hugh would get a spell-checker and gammar checker for his blog posts.) I still check his blog daily, though I must say that some of the name calling is beneath him. (What exactly, are moonbats?) Still, I find information and links and argued points of view, which challenge my thinking.

I subscribe to a web site called Presbyweb that follows the trials and triumphs of my own denomination.

I check Mark D. Roberts every day.

I also check the Powerline folks every day. They are from Minnesota, as I am. I like following Minnesota politics, especially from afar. And I find many of their comments insightful. I sometimes do not agree, but I like seeing them interact with people with whom they disagree. They almost always provide links, so that the comments they make can be seen in context.

Now, there is no one blog that can cover everything. So I also dive into other blogs on a regular basis. I regularly look at Talking Points Memo, Andrew Sullivan.

I have some friends with blogs, which I check often, like this one.

When I have a strong stomach, I will check in on Kos or Atrios. Though it is painful to read the comments like these.

But I digress. I suppose that blogs are nice places to rant. However, these rants are also open to the public. Not many people read this blog, so I am mostly writing for myself, and a few supportive friends.

Still, this verse from Philippians keeps going around in my head.

(Philippians 4:8 NIV) Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.

Disagree? Certainly. Let's just do it with civility, and without the hyperbolic personal attack.

Are there any blogs that you have found that educate, entertain, or edify you? Let me know, if you would. I may add them to my blogroll.