the internet dilemma
i’m certain that this has been remarked upon time and time again elsewhere, which is unfortunate. but discussion boards, article comments, and the various improvements in user interactivity based on the idea of “web 2.0″ have essentially destroyed any meaningful discourse.
thanks to the supposed advantage of anonymity, comment functionality for news articles, editorials, and blog entries are at the point where an author cannot even be trusted.
1. authors invite comments from regular readers once an article is published.
2. author then creates a bogus account for their comment forums, as an impostor.
3. author, in the guise of the bogus account, presents a flawed critique of their original point.
4. regular readers respond to the bogus account, making it appear as though the rank and file detractors of the author’s idea are unintelligent and/or have no idea of what they’re talking about.
end result: an anonymous source has added credibility to an author’s work.
this process wouldn’t be so bad, if it weren’t for the promotion of internet communication as the “one true way” of the future, and the disappearance of other forms of literary media. newspapers are dead; magazines are continually lacking relevance unless bolstered by online content (which is in turn invated by the interactive impostor process outlined above). television is a joke; a co-opted, indomitable force for the status quo and enemy of critical thought. the default question for those seeking upward mobility in the digital age is no longer “so what’s your website?” it’s now the statement “so let me friend you on facebook.”
it’s amazing to note that, for all the improvements included in technology and the internet, critical thinking has gone the way of the dodo. it’s like the only ideas being permeated are the dumb ones, and they are seen as gospel. hilarity ensues, or so my friends say.
I strongly disagree. Why would people blindly agree with the author when they have all the tools necessary to research on their own. For the most part, the ‘expert’ blogs are just opinion pieces, but they gain popularity as they prove to be correct time and time again.
The old school method is flawed. So the newspaper fucks up another story and prints a retraction that gets buried in the paper a week later, but only when several people call to complain? That’s not the way to do things…
ah…i’m not saying newspapers are better than the internet and web 2.0. what i’m saying is that there’s a false sense of credibility brewed within that system. for example…although i think wikipedia has become much more credible over time, i was completely against it when it was first established; the general consensus about it was that it was a ‘better reference’ simply because everyone could contribute. fortunately, the editors’ feet were held to the fire enough and they were astute enough to respond well. wikipedia has gained a considerable amount of credibility in my book.
but facebook posts? twitter? various political blogs? most of them are total bullshit, but taken as fact, simply because of their positioning. the old maxim was “it’s in print, so it must be true.” now, anything posted on a discussion board can be taken as fact…only if you sift through the resulting flame war (which i confess i lack the patience to endure) will you see the truth exposed, if at all.
i suppose i could have been more clear in my original post, but i didn’t have time this morning when i posted it.
I haven’t seen the blogger ruse you are describing before (though I wouldn’t know it if I had seen it because of its devious nature), but it seems counter-intuitive to me. If the blog has enough readers to defend the author against the author’s fake post, sounds to me like the blog is already popular enough to not need this. Popularity itself is often viewed as credibility.
The more likely scenario is when the blog has few readers, the author posts anonymously to SUPPORT his article. This requires no further action from the readers except to note that the blog is credible and they may pass on the word about it.
I agree with Nikc — if you see something posted online, a few clicks and keystrokes is all it takes to visit a more reputable source and to confirm the information or expose it as false.