trickster outed, after reading some of the WP articles, I'm not so sure we should be happy about how they have represented this one case. It seems to me that the Post is taking this case to show that 'something needs to be done about the Internet' and that's even more worrying since a bill has passed Congress today that may be attempting to do that.
The Post and other print media have lost so much readership mainly because they do not do their job of telling the truth to the people, that they are seriously worried about the competition they are getting from the Internet.
Some of the Freepers on the thread I read made that point, and after reading this article, and the tone it sets (using words like 'dangerous' eg) I hate to say it, but I have to agree.
It's easy to be blinded when a scumbag like this is caught playing dirty tricks like this, but I think we need to be aware that the Internet is a huge challenge to the failed MSM who have kept information from the people, as we are seeing more and more, now. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I see in this article, a condemnation of a medium the Post thinks needs to be controlled.
Web 'Privacy' Spurs Acts of Deceit Remoteness Brings Decline in CivilityBy Lena H. Sun Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 13, 2005; Page C01
When an aide to Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) went online to fuel damaging rumors about the Democratic mayor of Baltimore, he entered a world where public and private boundaries are treacherously blurred and normal etiquette can easily evaporate.
Joseph Steffen, who was fired last week for his postings and chat room e-mails, is a high-profile example of the conflicting freedoms and dangers of the Internet. It is a medium that allows unbridled communication but also seems to encourage a measure of mean-spiritedness.
Like millions of Americans for whom the Internet has become part of daily life, Steffen may have believed that what he wrote online was private and as a result felt freer to say things he would not have said in person. But when his online discussion of the intentional spread of rumors about Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley became known, his "private" statements led to a very public dismissal.
On a typical day, 70 million American adults are on the Internet, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, which studies the technology's social impact. Americans send millions of person-to-person e-mails a day, and the content is often fast and loose.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19754-2005Feb12.htmlThe whole tone of this article is critical of the Internet, minimizing the fact that it was the sleazy individual who used a private board (according to Freepers they were unaware of his ID) to spread sleaze about a political opponent who is to blame, a republican dirty trickster, not the 'Internet'.
The Post needs to know that like the print press, you need to know which are legitimate and which are tabloid. I am furious about this article. Did they blame the entire print press for Judith Miller's shameful reporting? Or the paid propagandists?
I think the Post is worried about competition and they found FR, which admittedly spreads lies about political opponents and has been used to play dirty tricks before, as in the CBS memo case. Too bad they just don't compete honestly with the 'blogs'. Maybe we'd go back to them if the simply reported facts, unlike their coverage of the war. It was on the web that the facts were to be found, and now we know where the truth was, and it wasn't in their publications.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
