Today, the opinion of a blogger can send corporations, politicians, and even the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory looking for shelters from cyberspace bombs.
Online publishing was once known as the “alternative” means of getting your opinion out. If you couldn’t get your article printed on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, or acceptance editors sent it back to you with a letter stating “This material is not suitable for our current needs,” you went ahead and logically placed it on your own site.
Dr. G. Peter Nanos was the subject of vitriolic posts on the laboratory’s blog
(www.lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com). This venom came from users demanding his resignation for closing many areas of the laboratory after two false security alarms. See the story at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/national/01alamos.html?th&emc=th.
And let’s not forget Mark Jen, who was fired from Google in January, 2005 for discussing his job too freely in his blog.
The blog format lends itself to whistle-blowing and sensitive information spillover, simply because it’s uncontrollable. Blogs have even gained in popularity in Iraq and other parts of the world that are already subject to heavy censorship by government and other officials. They are seen as an invaluable tool for circumventing established barriers to freedom of the press.
But should bloggers be allowed completely free rein? Is it really desirable that every officeholder and executive decision be subject to the agenda of a blogger, especially one with a personal agenda that doesn’t involve the long-term outcome of a careless post?
The answer awaits…we’re still finding out!
No comments:
Post a Comment