Quis Custodiet ...

Sunday, February 26, 2006
From Wretchard:
However, the low cost of entry into Internet publishing makes it possible for authors to create specialty publications which can effectively reach their audiences. Whether that's good or bad is the subject of debate. David Ignatius, writing in the Washington Post argues that unfiltered content, no longer moderated by the Gatekeepers, may be a dangerous and loose cannon....


I agree: unmediated, open, unfiltered conent without Gatekeepers may be dangerous.

Particularly to the gatekeepers.

4 comments:

stickman said...

I could presume, then, that what we have been getting from the MSM can be considered to be "filtered"?

If so, then "unfiltered" information may indeed be the lesser of two evils. the "filtering" process has given us a product that no one can trust.

Eric Blair said...

Whoo-weee. Truer words were never spoken.

That so many can get thier words to so many more is akin to the rise of the printing press in Western Europe.

I don't think we've even begun to see the changes in store.

Skookumchuk said...

I very distinctly remember a TV interview with Hillary sometime in the early 90's when the Internet really took off. She was complaining about its lack of editors and gatekeepers. It is interesting to look back and see how quickly the battle lines were formed between those who instinctively saw this as a bad thing and those who saw it as (potentially) a good thing.

Damn those newfangled clay tablets, where any idiot with a stylus can write whatever cuneiform nonsense pops in to his head.

Seneca the Younger said...

Stickman, I think *everything* we see is "filtered". The problem is that all the legacy media has more or less the same filter, which means our model of reality is unavoidably biased.