I'm not sure how to reply to this. I agree and disagree.
On the issue as a whole, I sympathize. I too think it's distressing that there are people out there willing to spend a dramatic amount of time editing things to fit their world view, and it's especially concerning when it's things I'm interested on. My only consolation is knowing that it's just an effect of allowing psuedo-anonymous editing by anyone. I know that things will be slanted to the right and slanted to the left, and I can at least see
who slanted it. Before the "information revolution" of the Internet, it was a lot harder to see the history of distortion by an individual - Wikipedia history allows this.
I'm also comforted by the fact that this man's address in the newspaper will probably generate a lot of interest about that article. It might even get locked or given the same "correction" attention from someone on your side of the fence. All "Kim Dabelstein Petersen" needs to match her is someone who will modify as often as she will. Soon, someone will "win."
On your final point, though, I have to disagree:
Quote:
|
In the end I have to wonder if the liberation of information which is what so many people feel the information age is about is really just a transformation from the prepackaged news of the past into a more insidious concealed propaganda for the hearts and minds of the voter at the level of source information.
|
While the example above is one example of "concealed propaganda," I really don't feel like it's an identifier of a systemic problem in the Internet. There is a LOT of information out there on the vast Internet that isn't available through the "prepackaged news of the past," and that amount will only continue to increase. At least now I can get
all the different slants and arrive at my own conclusion, somewhere in the middle. Before, I was left guessing what the opinion of the wacky contingent on the other side was thinking.
Also, Forums like this one help me have faith that there really is a liberation of information on the Internet. While nothing we say might be entirely factual, entirely without bias or even very convincing, we can at least discuss current events beyond the 2 or 3 people gathered around a TV or newspaper. I can hear perspectives from Iceland, California, Africa, and even Yemen when I'm on TFP. Never before could someone do that, even on something so simple as day-to-day politics.