Chicago Tribune Columnist: Hey You People Online With Opinions... Get Off My Lawn!
from the that-bad,-huh? dept
Reader Cannen alerts us to yet another column by yet another old school newspaper guy whining about the fact that "the people" now have the ability to have their voices heard. What's funny is that his own column seems to contradict his statements.Don't get me wrong. I am also an outraged narcissist, but I had to work six-hour shifts in Bakersfield, Calif., to earn my stripes as a communicator. Nowadays, having a Twitter page qualifies a person to give commentary on CNN. I am not interested in the take of @stinky on the Fort Hood shootings or any other current events. I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion.Ah yes, so because today it's easier for people to have a voice, it's bad. Yes, and you used to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow and television was called radio and had no pictures. But the world improves and progress comes along and gives more people a voice and that's bad how exactly?
With the advent of Twitter, Facebook, instant messaging and texting, now almost any fool can set up his or her broadcast hub. Then the likes of CNN, Fox News, Oprah and even the Tribune play right into their hands, giving them instant access to the rest of the world. I beseech the online editors at this paper to turn off the "comments" after each article. If people have opinions about something that they've just read, let them write a letter to the editor.Yes, but "any fool" doesn't get quite the attention as, say, a fool who blasts the fact that people have a voice in a major national newspaper, right? Who cares that anyone can say what they want. Most people don't see those complaints. You call it a "broadcast hub" but most people's Twitter accounts don't have very many followers. That's not the issue at all. The actual complaint seems to be that CNN and Fox and others have elevated a few of these folks (a tiny percentage of the overall population using these tools), and you don't like it because.... what, exactly? Because they compete with you in being a public "fool"?
Most of my career has been spent in radio, where call-in comments are somewhat encouraged. The main difference is that we can hang up on people.Ok, let me get this straight. Before you were complaining that CNN and Fox were putting these people on their shows, but then you say at least on radio you could "hang up on people." Do you not sense the contradiction? CNN and Fox can just as easily "hang up" on these people too. So what's the difference?
Basically, it sounds like the guy is pissed off that he's no longer the only person with an opinion getting heard. But, of course, he's missing the point in blaming the new technology. Yes, lots of people have a voice, but most still don't get heard very far. The folks who are getting on TV or are making their voices heard are because they're saying something that resonates, whether it's stupid or not. And, no, maybe they didn't have to practice being a public moron in some small town first, but is that really a necessity?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: opinions, people, social media, voice
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: compitition sux, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy is the epitome of what is wrong with newspapers today
I can only imagine what this guy must be like in person. Probably doesn't have many friends because he never listens to what they have to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of my career has been spent in radio, where call-in comments are somewhat encouraged. The main difference is that we can hang up on people. This is all part of the town hall meeting mentality sweeping the nation. I've got news for you: The "town hall meeting" was invented by politicians to make you think that your opinion actually counts. It doesn't. A town hall meeting just gives people with too much time on their hands a chance to vent. Beyond that, it's an insult to broadcasters and journalists who have at least taken the time to form an opinion longer than a sentence and have actually done some research. What's the point of doing all of that, when any knucklehead has the same access to the people you brought to the party in the first place?
[/quote]
He's basically an old dog that needs to be put out of his misery. Times change and the comment feature provides a great benefit and is going to evolve the "Town Hall" idea further than just people venting and having too much free time. Woohooo! Our opinions might make significant differences!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Having said that, if the publication is intelligent and don't patronise their audience then you often end up with some very interesting discussions.
I suppose not everything can worth my while. If it was then I'd never have any time for anything but reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Douglas Adams described something relevant
Douglas Adams referred to this as 'discrepancy of opinion'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Douglas Adams described something relevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Douglas Adams described something relevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Douglas Adams described something relevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Douglas Adams described something relevant
Er, you're not much of a sports fan, are you? Tell you what, consider this an open-ended invitation to my place next Sunday. We'll watch the Bears play whoever they're going to lose to next, we'll eat man-foods like chili and brats, we'll swill cheap lite beer, we'll paint our faces in the colors of our favorite teams, and generally act like animals.
Then we'll switch the channel over the the Blackhawks to watch them demolish whoever they're going to be playing. I'll offer you the same explanation I offered my girlfriend as to why we don't refer to hockey periods as quarters (Spoiler Alert: There isn't four of them!).
Once we're good and sauced, not to mention hoarse from screaming obscenities at the grown men chasing around a ball or puck and generally beating the shit out of each other, I'll do a quick Google search on the Stanley Cup and Lombardi Trophies, and thank you for the laugh you provided me by making me picture Brian Urlacher in full Bears gear sliding around on the ice with a stick and randomly whacking people on the head with it.
You in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Douglas Adams described something relevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Douglas Adams described something relevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Douglas Adams described something relevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Douglas Adams described something relevant
Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boneheads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dahl is a dullard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dahl is a dullard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People will only pay attention to your views if you can defend them and you still have to go through the work and effort of LEARNING the material you are talking about and DEFENDING your views. For example, Mike Masnick EARNED his credibility, he graduated from a top institution in economics. And scientists who comment on blogs who have credibility have EARNED it by spending YEARS in school studying the subject they talk about. What has this person done in comparison?
"but I had to work six-hour shifts in Bakersfield, Calif., to earn my stripes as a communicator."
On the Internet I can easily locate and talk to PH.d's from top universities in all sorts of topics from cryptography to biology and I can get their views on things like vaccines to cryptographic voting systems. I would MUCH rather listen to them, people who have spent YEARS studying a subject and who have earned their knowledge in the field, than some stupid journalist ANY DAY.
In fact, I see the OPPOSITE as true. The monopoly on communication allows people who know nothing to brainwash the population with their views without competition. They can brainwash the population with views that are self serving but would NEVER stand up to criticism and they can have those views go unchallenged. By having a monopoly on communication and the infrastructure those who get their views on mainstream media have STOLE the attention of others, they have not EARNED it by presenting views that compete in the free marketplace of ideas. Currently, on the Internet your views must EARN credibility in order for people to pay attention to them, you can't simply come here and tell lies and expect people to believe you (like on mainstream media). Also note, mainstream media is a lot more careful now, thanks to the Internet, about telling blatant lies because they know people on the Internet will quickly correct them. Without this open communication the mainstream media would simply go back to telling nothing but lies because they can get away with it. They have NEVER earned their position by having their views compete in the open market of ideas, they STOLE it through lobbying.
"I am not interested in the take of @stinky on the Fort Hood shootings or any other current events."
don't don't read his comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
then don't read his comments. No one is forcing you to.
"Most of my career has been spent in radio, where call-in comments are somewhat encouraged. The main difference is that we can hang up on people. "
Yes, you can hang up on those who disagree with you and keep the calls from people that agree with you and your self serving agenda (those who present views that favor the American plutocracy). You can simply hang up on the masses because the government isn't here to serve the masses, they're here to serve the rich and the masses should have no voice. Now thanks to the Internet the masses do have a voice and people like you want to take away their voice because you think that only position that agree with the rich should have a voice. You think that only your opinion matters and only opinions that agree with you and opposing views should simply be hung up on.
At least you tacitly admit that the attempts by the mainstream media and big corporations to stop the Internet isn't about encouraging good journalism but it's about hanging up on the masses and hanging up on the views that disagree with you.
"With the advent of Twitter, Facebook, instant messaging and texting, now almost any fool can set up his or her broadcast hub."
With the mainstream media only the fools who support the American plutocracy gets a broadcast hub and the masses get censored. The government SHOULD exist to serve the masses but you admit that you don't want the masses to have a voice. If the government is to serve the masses it should be the masses that have a voice, not just those who agree with you. Otherwise we're better off without a government.
"If people have opinions about something that they've just read, let them write a letter to the editor. "
That way if the opinion disagrees with the plutocracy they can simply be ignored. Why should any entity have the power to decide which views get communicated and which views don't? Because their views can't compete with those views that they censor? If their views can compete then why not convince us with arguments instead of trying to brainwash us with censorship of criticisms and opposing views?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He does have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He does have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He does have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(shouldn't be necessary but /s)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even I, an absolute ignoramus when it comes to sports, immediately saw the football/Stanley Cup thing. Your response was priceless and a copy has been placed in my "book of wonderful things"--oops, did I trash your IP rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scared of the deadly boredom
Read my boringness and be afraid. Be vary afraid.
Seriously, if he can't compete with someone like me, then he's got more problems then Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocritcal Pompous Ass Deleted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocritcal Pompous Ass Deleted
No, actually they lobby the government and laws start getting passed in their favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senior's Concern
I beginning to wonder if Death might be a senior's best friend?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]