Isolationism

A good friend of mine (with apparently better eyesight than my own) over at Push the Third Button Twice made a recent editorial post about a new trend against, in the Blog Herald’s own words, “blogging for money,” which I think should be rewritten to “knowingly blogging biased content for financial gain” (but then I should talk because the Blog Herald is obviously a way more successful blog than mine. I wasn’t even thinking of the word “sensationalism,” why do you mention it?).

MCM (A.K.A. Mr Andrews) suggests that the blogger’s mores already encapsulate this so-called “Honour Pledge” (with or without the ‘u’, as you please), and that the internet will act as a unified force against any foul play on the part of the blogger and disgrace their name (and, presumably, the blgo). My gut reaction is to want to agree with him.

Of course, it’s not really true, is it?

Blogs are, by their very nature, a personal thing—The average blogger writes about two things: their own experiences, and comments (read: editorials, e.g. this post) on second-or-later hand information. To restate a little more bluntly, there is no such thing as non-editorial content: We are continuously shaping everything we convey (consciously or otherwise) to represent our message with a bias toward the way we want it to be perceived, just as our own sensual perception is biased—and even censored—by other experiences.

Don’t think it’s true? Do you use the same tone of voice, the same diction to talk to your boss as you would your lover, or your child? How about a complete stranger? Someone you are attracted to vs. someone you’re intimidated by? Have you read, watched, or listened to the news lately ever?

Call me cynical, but I feel the governing force about what bloggers write about (and how they write it) is this: self-interest. Lofty words coming from me, I know, but consider the following example.

MCM has written some rather good books about modern intellectual property issues. He wrote them not because you want to read them—after all, you probably didn’t know about them until they were already a fait accompli—but because he wanted to write about issues he feels strongly about, and to convey his point of view on the subjects to others.

Conversely, you don’t have to look far to find similarly child-oriented programming explaining how music piracy is theft (even though it isn’t in strict legal terms), and how kids who download music go to federal PMITA prison.

So fucking what if one of them is funded by the RIAA and the other written in someone’s spare time? The money isn’t the issue here—it’s the ideal, and that belongs to the person, not a dollar bill. MCM’s views align considerably closer to my own than those held by the RIAA, but that doesn’t mean others won’t disagree with me, or that only one of the two publications is propaganda (depending on my own personal point of view on the subject matter).

My conclusion is that the blog you read is going to conform to the ideals of the person (or organisation) behind it, and that any badges worn, pledges made or oaths sworn have no bearing on whether or not the undertaking individual will uphold their promises or not. If the ideals in question have a price tag on them, why would you want to read what that person had to say anyway?