Like Instapundit, Mickey Kaus says his speech will resemble a blog.
Here is the Lawmeme link for a veritable transcription of the speech.
Questions he intends to answer:
1. Will Blogs replace conventional media?
2. Will Blogs ever make any money?
3. Why are Bloggers so damn right wing?
4. Will Blogging require changing the law on free speech?
5. Will Blogging lead to more tribal cocooning? (the Sunstein problem)
6. Is Blogging good for journalism?
Answers:
1. No. Some people are going to get the inside information (like Instapundit)--they will become conventional media. [This is exactly my point. The centralized sites, like Instapundit and Slashdot, may challenge big media, but individual bloggers, the thousands of us, as individual bloggers will not.]
2. Probably not. RSS will kill us.
3. Three theories, here is the funniest: Right wingers are angrier (angry at a bunch of things). Kaus favors a media bias theory ("Why should left-wingers pick on bloggers when they've got the NY Times.") [Well, I guess that depends on whether bloggers are a real threat to big media. Whee, and we're back to the same question, again.]
4. Blogging provides reasons for relaxing libel law. (a) Changing definition of the press (b) Technology of correction has sped up. This undercuts the basis of libel law. (c) There is a different ecology--discussion, not just one-way where the media force feeds the public. [Insert funny conversation between Instapundit and Mickey Kaus about libel insurance]
5. Blogs are in part the antidote to cocooning. Kaus suggests that this discussion is fantastic. But he does offer there are a few people who he would think twice about attacking: (1) Drudge, (2) Instapundit. [Interesting]
6. Yes. Blogs increase the speed of dissemination. There is also the benefit of anonymity that induces greater discussion [a la the Federalist papers!]
This is very much like Professor John Langbein's approach to lecturing. "QUESTION!" (pause) "ANSWER!" At least he doesn't call on us.
Comments :
0 comments to “ ”
Post a Comment