I must say I was a bit offended by the 'broad brush' that the President used yesterday to paint the "blogger" into a very mixed box. Since I generally try to give him (and his speech writers) the benefit of the doubt, I thought I'd put this out there, in an attempt to figure out the meaning of this paint-by-numbers group portrait.
First the actual statement (followed by one journalist's take of it):
And now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do, and that's grow this economy, create good jobs, strengthen the middle class, educate our kids, lay the foundation for broad-based prosperity and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul. That's why we're here. That should be our focus.
[...]
But blaming the blogging field for the way the Internet and the entire journalism industry works seems like a bit a a reach -- especially lumping them in with professional activists and lobbyists who are literally paid to advocate one side or another, as well as partisan talking heads. Is the president trolling us?
by Andrea Peterson, who covers technology policy for The Washington Post.
[ emphasis from the source post ]
Excuse me? Bloggers belong between the likes of the Independent Oil & Gas Association and Rush (the-slut) Limbaugh ???
Really!? What could be "the true meaning" of this ...
One possibility is the speech writer is having a bad-news week with "The Bloggers'.
Two, the phrase "who profit from conflict" was inartfully placed, and the President is only discounting The "paid" Bloggers? (which is still insulting by the way.)
Three, to the degree that Bloggers actually promote the National conversation, and push people's emotional buttons -- the President actually dislikes the pre-empting?
Four, "The Bloggers' are actually 'bad news' for America. Nevermind, the First Amendment; forget about the citizen activism; abandon the idea of ever 'speaking truth to power' again. The Bloggers are only deluding themselves, by thinking they participate in any of those things (?).
Perhaps the President is gently telling us, we should just "Get a Life" --
A life that doesn't rely on the internet, in order to get any traction; in order to 'make a difference'; in order to effect 'real change' ...
If that latter one is the case, well I'm sorry to say Mr President (and prez speech-writer) -- that THAT internet-less flight has already flown.
That's a quaint, village-based world, that we'll never get back -- no matter the statesmen-like aspirations. nor the heartfelt desire to return to civil decorum. THAT net-less ship has sailed.
Besides, if we could get back to that pristine place, that melting pot of society, that forging of our foundational legacy -- you know the one thing THEY would have wanted in such a grassroots 'civil society' era?
The ability to distribute their ideas quickly; a medium to repeat their views so that all the villagers could easily digest them ...
In short, they'd want the Internet!
Because our nation's founders were The Original Bloggers -- sans the speed-of-light technology, that's all.
Of course that is only one unpaid Blogger's opinion. So take that, for what's it's worth.
The Bloggers aren't the bane of America ... us bloggers are, the heart and soul of America,
IMHO. Unpaid, and unwarranted, as it is.