Monday, July 11, 2005
Umair vs Jeff
Please excuse (and feel free to skip) the following political rant...
Jeff, apparently, only believes in the democratizing power of Media 2.0 when Muslims aren't involved:
"...: And on Global Voices, they're aggregating views from the Muslim blogopshere. They're quoting condolences. I wonder how representative that is. If only it were."
Isn't that cute. One of Media 2.0's biggest champions dismissing, out of hand, an entire portion of the micromediaverse just because of their religion.
The blogosphere, it seems, only counts for Jeff when it's...not Muslim...White, Christian, who knows. The Muslim blogosphere, apparently, is only there to be dismissed (by Jeff).
You know, in the rest of the world, we call this position hypocritical - it's trivially self-contradictory. We might also call it something close to racist.
The unstated assumption which this argument rests on, and which Jeff still supports is obvious: Muslims bloggers, podcasters, writers, (etc) can't be trusted, because, well, they're Muslim. See the brilliant circularity?
This is coming from a so-called champion of citizen journalism/open source media. Think about that for a second.
Contrast with Matteo's comment on Mefi:
"...so the attacks are to blame also on teh murlims who don't actually bomb shit, too? cool, these dark people never seem to do anything right in your world -- damned if they bomb, damned if they condemn the bombing."
Jeff, thanks for putting your money where you mouth is. I guess now I know how much you really mean all that wonderful Media 2.0 stuff about openness and transparency and empowerment. You mean it sometimes - when it's easy and convenient. Not when it's tough, and it challenges you.
Put another way: Media 2.0 is, in a very real sense, the triumph of techno-hippie ideals of openness and transparency. I think your radical politics of exclusion are gonna destroy your cred as a serious Media 2.0 thinker.
You can't be about Media 2.0, and also about excluding anyone, well, you you don't agree with. That's so Rupert Murdoch - so tragic, so lame, so...90s.
End politics, back to regularly scheduled geekery.
He merely questioned whether those sentiments were representative. Which seems a fair question, given this, for instance:
Everything else about race and only certain views counting needed to be invented by you to support your argument. To invoke your very lame formulation: you know, in the rest of the world, we call this pathetic.
I obviously did not say it well, considering the responses. But, as the commenter above says, yes, I was wondering... in fact, I was hoping. I want the sentiments quoted in those posts to be representative. I wish they were. I wonder whether they were. But I don't know.