Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Vox Blogoli V1N1 - Take Two
Yesterday Hugh Hewitt interviewed Jonathon Rauch on his radio program to respond to the original "blog swarm" that happened when Hugh posted a pull quote from Rauch's new Atlantic piece and called this Vox Blogoli. Rauch readily admitted that the inflammatory statements in the pull quote were ill conceived and should have been written better. Rauch argued that if the full article was read, and the pull quote appeared in context, the statements would not seem so offensive. He then got Hugh permission to post the article at his blog (link in title)
I have now read the full article twice. I will grant Rauch that having the quote in context takes some of the sting out of it, but there is still a problem with the article. After spending most of it's time quite even-handedly, it concludes with the pull quote, in a fashion that implies that Republicans have a much bigger problem with the inclusion of the extremeists than the Dems do -- that somehow the Dems, while growing more extreme, are closer to the center than the GOP is. This implication exists simply becasue he does not balance his statements about the right with ones about the left. He also implies that the religious right is definitionally extremist, even as he withdrew his assertion that they are violent in the radio interview.
This article definitely belies a liberal bias becasue it choses examples that would appeal in that direction.
It is widely known to all of us that HOW something is said, and written, can mean as much as WHAT is said. The best example I know was a radio report I heard years ago -- it was a known opinion outlet, so the bias was evident. The commentator was reading a piece on the potential ozone depleting properties of an extremely common material called 1,1,1-trichlorethane. The commentator ended the piece by declaring that manufacturers made it difficult for consumers to avoid products using this material becasue they "hide" their use of the material by using names for it like "Trichlor," "Methylchloroform," and "1,1,1."
I am willing to bet that all of you who read the last paragraph stumbled when you got to "1,1,1-trichloroethane." Well, I am academically trained as a chemist, and I stumble over it -- and I have been known to use it literally 100's of times in a day. The synonyms listed above are far from attempts to "hide" the identity of the material -- rather they are attempts to make the material more accessable -- they are supposed to be easier to say, hear, and remember. The formal 1,1,1-trichlorethane name is highly descriptive to chemists and is the official name by a naming protocol devised by chemists to avoid very technical confusion that can arise, but it is admittedly clumsy and commonly avoided in consumer situations.
The commentator, by his choice of the word "hide" revealed a prejudice that could have been avoided simply removing the intent laden aspects of his statement and replacing it with "Things can be a little confusing because the material has several synonyms..."
In his choice of examples, Mr. Rauch has revealed a prejudice as well. The few pertinent words Hugh pulled changed the piece from reporting to commentary -- it's as simple as that. While Rauch's statements may not be as pointed as hearing them out of context makes them look, I see little reason to withdraw what I said in my original post.
I have now read the full article twice. I will grant Rauch that having the quote in context takes some of the sting out of it, but there is still a problem with the article. After spending most of it's time quite even-handedly, it concludes with the pull quote, in a fashion that implies that Republicans have a much bigger problem with the inclusion of the extremeists than the Dems do -- that somehow the Dems, while growing more extreme, are closer to the center than the GOP is. This implication exists simply becasue he does not balance his statements about the right with ones about the left. He also implies that the religious right is definitionally extremist, even as he withdrew his assertion that they are violent in the radio interview.
This article definitely belies a liberal bias becasue it choses examples that would appeal in that direction.
It is widely known to all of us that HOW something is said, and written, can mean as much as WHAT is said. The best example I know was a radio report I heard years ago -- it was a known opinion outlet, so the bias was evident. The commentator was reading a piece on the potential ozone depleting properties of an extremely common material called 1,1,1-trichlorethane. The commentator ended the piece by declaring that manufacturers made it difficult for consumers to avoid products using this material becasue they "hide" their use of the material by using names for it like "Trichlor," "Methylchloroform," and "1,1,1."
I am willing to bet that all of you who read the last paragraph stumbled when you got to "1,1,1-trichloroethane." Well, I am academically trained as a chemist, and I stumble over it -- and I have been known to use it literally 100's of times in a day. The synonyms listed above are far from attempts to "hide" the identity of the material -- rather they are attempts to make the material more accessable -- they are supposed to be easier to say, hear, and remember. The formal 1,1,1-trichlorethane name is highly descriptive to chemists and is the official name by a naming protocol devised by chemists to avoid very technical confusion that can arise, but it is admittedly clumsy and commonly avoided in consumer situations.
The commentator, by his choice of the word "hide" revealed a prejudice that could have been avoided simply removing the intent laden aspects of his statement and replacing it with "Things can be a little confusing because the material has several synonyms..."
In his choice of examples, Mr. Rauch has revealed a prejudice as well. The few pertinent words Hugh pulled changed the piece from reporting to commentary -- it's as simple as that. While Rauch's statements may not be as pointed as hearing them out of context makes them look, I see little reason to withdraw what I said in my original post.
