Sunday, February 26, 2006

Quis Custodiet ...

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.

3 comments:

Eric 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.

Anonymous 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.

Charlie Martin 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.