The mainstream media give a select group of think tanks and corporate interests air space in the name of balance. The blogosphere can help rubbish much of the bias.
Our guest writer is Andrew Regan who runs Poblish, a new hub for the political blogosphere
Anyone who follows the BBC News site, or who reads a newspaper, will be familiar with a good few interest groups and think tanks. Where their news releases aren’t the entire basis for the story, they are invited to comment at length, in the name of political “balance”, or on the basis of an often-undeserved authority.
A great deal of our time as bloggers is thus spent exposing the same old partisan front groups – the TaxPayer’s Alliance, and so on – corporate shills, and organisations that exist purely and simply for the promotion of a particular set of views. While individuals can always change their mind on an issue, interest groups cannot, and will not. Moreover, their neatly packaged set of proposals can be tempting for governments running short of ideas, and short of friends.
Whether the groups are ostensibly on the left or the right, their influence can only be bad for politics. In the name of “balance”, the essential politics within a debate – the key issues and arguments – is drained away, or rechannelled to the financial benefit of one organisation.
Why should we – as bloggers – put up with seeing the same discredited arguments trotted-out again and again, and which we have argued over and over again, when we have – at our disposal – a vast resource of evidence, argument, and opinion to call upon?
What I propose is a collective – and non-partisan – organisation of political bloggers, which will challenge the interest groups in the name of honest and open politics, and provide newspapers and online news sites with a central resource that allows them to dispense with the services of self-interested think tanks and self-styled experts.
These bloggers would come together whenever required, putting aside their partisan interests, to tap the blogosphere’s collected wisdom – and, just as importantly, its memory – to fisk, rebut, and generally trump groups that are used to thinking in relative isolation. Bloggers will have many advantages, not least access to background information about the groups, via SourceWatch et al.
Of course I don’t propose that bloggers attempt to produce consensus. Not only is this implausible, but it would be dishonest, and would drop us into the same trap as the BBC and others. While artificial disputes help no one, genuine disagreements must come out. The public must have access to the full range of political opinion – no political cause benefits in the long run from anything different.
All in all, by shaking up lazy journalism, exposing lazy thinking, and by undercutting the “go-to” groups and “experts”, the reputation of the political blogosphere – as simply the best resource for distributed thought and opinion we have – must surely increase.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
24 Responses to “Harnessing the distributed intelligence of the blogosphere”
uberVU - social comments
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by leftfootfwd: How to use the distributed intelligence of the blogosphere to expose the discredited arguments of interest groups http://bit.ly/dmESoY…
Konnolsky
This article is hurt my poor Smolensky head. Here in butcher’s shop, where today Yuri is try deal with rat infestation – he is look like Pink Panther of Hamlin, only is use Kalashnikov not flutes – we are struggle understand burst intellect of hemisphere, or whatever is idea.
As I am see, much as enjoying nice blog and chat with English friends, web is not place for great thinkings. Sure, plenty campaigns. But can one Fyodor Dostoevsky be made from idle web chat of 2 millions of misanthropistic teenagers with hang up on religions or women and for whom blog is alternative for play with self? Bloggings is not produce great thoughts, as people is reach for lowest common annihilator.
So here is wisdom. In Smolensk is great idea build power station, plenty electrics, plenty jobs. But all people on Ivan Grozny Estate near to propose site is get up big petition, nearly not happen. But Russian politicians is wise and overturn local people with mix of kind words, promise of vodka, and bulldozers.
Matthew Sinclair
Andrew,
What exactly is wrong with a group of people who believe in lower taxes, more efficient services and less intrusive government campaigning for those goals? Sure, you might disagree with us and want to contest our evidence, you can even cast aspersions on our motives, but that’s politics. If we all agreed it wouldn’t be necessary and we could have everything be decided by happy clappy consensus.
How is what we’re doing different to Left Foot Forward? This site claims to be fighting for
“- Sustainable economy
– Public services for all
– Safe communities
– Multilateral foreign policy”
Given that your website looks like a poorly designed version of PoliticsHome, I have no idea why LFF have given you a platform.
Best,
Matt
Andrew Regan
Matthew,
Please don’t insult my readers’ intelligence with this dribble. “What exactly is wrong” you ask, with the TPA? Well, it should be clear from my article that I have no specific complaint against your organisation, only that – alongside many, many others – it purports to be an authority on a particular issue, and has gained media traction on that basis, while simply being a campaigning organisation – a front, if you like – for a particular political cause, and set of policies. You don’t get any valuable kind of “balance” by pitting two such organisations against one another in a discussion.
You’ll see that I also wrote “Of course I don’t propose that bloggers attempt to produce consensus”. Clearly, then, consensus is not what this campaign is about. It’s about honest and open politics, not about who can get in with the BBC and the newspapers, and narrow the debate down so it’s firmly on their own territory – your very raison d’être.
Finally, I’m a big enough person to say that the TPA website looks just fine – shame you felt the need to go for the cheap shot.
Best,
Andrew
Gloria Dawson
Collective knwldge 2 slay political nnsnse?-http://tinyurl.com/ygnj376- http://tinyurl.com/y8begzn- I say #fullfact ! http://fullfact.org/