"Vox Blogoli" Revisited--Updated Thoughts on Jonathan Rauch, Hugh Hewitt & the Blogoshere
In light of Jonathan Rauch's appearance on Hugh Hewitt's radio program today, and in light of the Atlantic Monthly's agreement with Mr. Rauch to allow the entire text of his article to be posted on Hugh's website, updated thoughts are being solicited for yesterday's "Vox Blogoli." So, here are my updated thoughts.
Hip, hip hooray for Jonathan Rauch! You did a beautiful, gracious, mature and very unusual thing. You listened to your critics with open ears and respected their written responses to the excerpt from your article that Hugh posted on his website yesterday.
After reading Rauch's entire article this evening I can easily see that same gracious and mature character reflected in his prose (and even a successfully intentional attempt to be "fair and balanced").
I suppose it would be easy to take a cheap shot at Hugh for lifting that one particular section of text out of the context of the entire article, and such a shot might well be justified.
On the other hand, the disputed section of text was written without enough objectivity to recognize that its implied comparisons would be patently offensive to millions of Americans, in particular, those who might identify themselves as "religious conservatives".
The fact that this "mis-intended" paragraph was pentultimate in the article only served to exaggerate its impression on those who read it, including most certainly, Hugh Hewitt.
To his credit and to my relief, Jonathan Rauch admitted that he had mangled his intended thought with inappropriately juxtaposed imagery. He also apologized for it. He made no excuse for it. He blamed no one else; and suggested that if the rest of the article were to be considered it would show that this particular section was not at all consistent with either the tone or thesis of the whole.
I have read the whole article and I must concur with Mr. Rauch's own assessment. In light of this I am willing to believe that he may, in fact, actually have friends who are "religious conservatives" and is more likely than not respectful of and not un-informed concerning their values and beliefs!
As Hugh has pointed out, the entire exercise was a valuable proof of how quickly the blogosphere can respond to even the smallest and least malicious misstep in grammar and syntax in the MSM.
While clearly a wonderful improvement for accountability and self-correction in the media the use of the blogosphere in such a way as was done by Hugh raises certain concerns.
We who blog must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to be manipulated by those who we admire and trust. It is tempting to write our "Vox Blogoli" responses in a way designed to "please" Mr. Hewitt or conform to what we think might be his own thoughts and opinions.
It would be sad, indeed, if the blogosphere divided itself into the sort of political party divisions so carefully parsed by Mr. Rauch in his article. It is far better for each of us to craft and hone our own voice rather than attempt to "clone" it after someone higher up in the ecosystem. It is not healthy, either, for good men like Hugh to feel too empowered in his opinions and commentary by allowing him to think that we praise and rejoice at his every utterance.
Hugh, I promise to do all I can to keep you humble! Don't let your growing following go to your head lest you begin to think more highly of yourself than you ought to think.
Indeed, although it might cost you some of your listenership, perhaps you should take a point of caution from Jonathan Rauch's article. Just like the Washington D.C. politicos, your status is maintained by being provocative and divisive. I suggest that you would be even more believable and authentic if you occasionally represented some of the unity of thought amongst the middle-majority of Americans, and chastise those in both political parties who seek to divide us as Americans for their own political gain.
For example, your concern over whether Arlen Specter was right-wing-pure enough to be allowed chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee or not. Is it now impossible to be a "mixed-blessing" such as are exemplified by such folks as John McCain and Arlen Specter on the Republican side and Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller among the Democrats? Must political positions always be adversarial and polarizing in order to be legitimate and respected?
Do you hear me, bloggers? Keep your independence! Don't become anyone's toady! Speak the truth as you understand it...but always in love...and with a level of dignity and respect all too lacking in the political arena today.
Hip, hip hooray for Jonathan Rauch! You did a beautiful, gracious, mature and very unusual thing. You listened to your critics with open ears and respected their written responses to the excerpt from your article that Hugh posted on his website yesterday.
After reading Rauch's entire article this evening I can easily see that same gracious and mature character reflected in his prose (and even a successfully intentional attempt to be "fair and balanced").
I suppose it would be easy to take a cheap shot at Hugh for lifting that one particular section of text out of the context of the entire article, and such a shot might well be justified.
On the other hand, the disputed section of text was written without enough objectivity to recognize that its implied comparisons would be patently offensive to millions of Americans, in particular, those who might identify themselves as "religious conservatives".
The fact that this "mis-intended" paragraph was pentultimate in the article only served to exaggerate its impression on those who read it, including most certainly, Hugh Hewitt.
To his credit and to my relief, Jonathan Rauch admitted that he had mangled his intended thought with inappropriately juxtaposed imagery. He also apologized for it. He made no excuse for it. He blamed no one else; and suggested that if the rest of the article were to be considered it would show that this particular section was not at all consistent with either the tone or thesis of the whole.
I have read the whole article and I must concur with Mr. Rauch's own assessment. In light of this I am willing to believe that he may, in fact, actually have friends who are "religious conservatives" and is more likely than not respectful of and not un-informed concerning their values and beliefs!
As Hugh has pointed out, the entire exercise was a valuable proof of how quickly the blogosphere can respond to even the smallest and least malicious misstep in grammar and syntax in the MSM.
While clearly a wonderful improvement for accountability and self-correction in the media the use of the blogosphere in such a way as was done by Hugh raises certain concerns.
We who blog must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to be manipulated by those who we admire and trust. It is tempting to write our "Vox Blogoli" responses in a way designed to "please" Mr. Hewitt or conform to what we think might be his own thoughts and opinions.
It would be sad, indeed, if the blogosphere divided itself into the sort of political party divisions so carefully parsed by Mr. Rauch in his article. It is far better for each of us to craft and hone our own voice rather than attempt to "clone" it after someone higher up in the ecosystem. It is not healthy, either, for good men like Hugh to feel too empowered in his opinions and commentary by allowing him to think that we praise and rejoice at his every utterance.
Hugh, I promise to do all I can to keep you humble! Don't let your growing following go to your head lest you begin to think more highly of yourself than you ought to think.
Indeed, although it might cost you some of your listenership, perhaps you should take a point of caution from Jonathan Rauch's article. Just like the Washington D.C. politicos, your status is maintained by being provocative and divisive. I suggest that you would be even more believable and authentic if you occasionally represented some of the unity of thought amongst the middle-majority of Americans, and chastise those in both political parties who seek to divide us as Americans for their own political gain.
For example, your concern over whether Arlen Specter was right-wing-pure enough to be allowed chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee or not. Is it now impossible to be a "mixed-blessing" such as are exemplified by such folks as John McCain and Arlen Specter on the Republican side and Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller among the Democrats? Must political positions always be adversarial and polarizing in order to be legitimate and respected?
Do you hear me, bloggers? Keep your independence! Don't become anyone's toady! Speak the truth as you understand it...but always in love...and with a level of dignity and respect all too lacking in the political arena today.
posted by Bird of Paradise at 10:21 PM
<< Home