I Used To Like Steven Levy

…until he called me an ankle-biter, that is. I’m gonna prove him wrong on two counts. 1) Blanket-generalizations are bad. 2) I’m going to take myself to task for having used them in the past.

I think Steven is trying to re-assert his place now that big media has been dealt a serious credibility blow. And that’s fine. But what Steven, a usually smart and insightful guy, seems to have missed is the fact that, since he’s talking specifically about politico-blogging, is that many of these guys do more than just talk. They’re guys like Evan Coyne Maloney, who go out and make political documentaries. You have guys like the Blogging Caesar, who keeps track of polling and electoral vote data. These guys are not ankle-biters by any means… these guys take plenty of time to try to be objective while still having opinions.

And I disagree that bloggers don’t get taken to task, either. I get called on it when I say something stupid. Microsoft Blogger Robert Scoble is constantly thrashed by all sides. The thing about the blogosphere is that it is uniquely self-managed. Call them the citizen watchdogs of the post-Enron era. Anyone with the attention-span to type out their opinions has a voice, and frequently use it.

And why does Steven say “partisan” like it is some evil thing? It’s not ok to have a side that you agree with more, and to make your views plain? It’s better to lie to everyone and say that you’re not biased? Oh, I guess in the mainstream media, it is. Hmmm, if the alternative means I end up a crazy psycho like Dan Rather, then I think I’ll stay blatantly partisan, thank you very much. I’d respect that man a lot more if he just told everyone what his political beliefs are. Call it the new “coming out of the closet”… it’s not just for homosexuals anymore!

I think what Steven really dislikes about blogging is that people in general are not all that open-minded, and blogging gives those people a voice. But the funny thing about civil discourse is, it makes you think. See Steven, you missed the point. Blogging isn’t about the content of the opinions, it’s about the conversation.

Don’t believe me? Well, why did the Iraq war happen? It wasn’t because Bush wanted to control the oil in the Middle East, which is a ridiculous notion. If you believe that, you need to stop reading anything I have to say right now, because my ideas are always based on logic. Anyways… No, it happened because the conversation stopped. Saddam was a moron who secluded himself, impoverished his government, and kicked out people sent in to keep the conversation going (the weapons inspectors). And he got what he deserved.. removed from power. Now there are people in Iraq in power who understand the value of the conversation that Democracy brings to the table.

So some people argue that we should have kept talking. Why? By definition, a conversation is a two-way exchange of ideas. Giving the world the diplomatic “finger” is not exchanging ideas. Now, many Democrats suggest that the talking should continue. Well, many might be surprised to find out that talking != conversation. And that kind of idea would be about as useful as yelling at the wind.

Was that partisan, Steven? You betcha. But it was part of a conversation…. one that you started by writing that article. Welcome to blogging.