Blogging’s egalitarian Aspect

“The political sphere often referred to as an arena, for reason we can all surmise, has become a linguistic battle ground. It has elements of abusion, collusion, and sabotage that read better than any espionage novel. However, it seems that the long-held perception of mainstream media as Goliath, and the internet politico as David, is no longer an inveterate social construct. The claim can be made through simple deduction and inference by posing a question. Who authors the discussion? Although I focus herein on political blogs, the topic of a blog seems to be of little consequence in deciding who is allowed to participate. As W.D. Barton states in “The Future of Rational-Critical debate in Online Public Spheres,” “communities rather than individual users author blogs.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/technology/07blog.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)
In the political spectrum, blogs have a marked egalitarian effect, removing the gate keeping powers that ensure the top-down messaging, which mainstream media has become so reliant on for its maintenance. However, the caveats to the egalitarian aspect to blogging are many, especially upon critical analysis of the sourcing, both of the text and the authors. Who is writing what, and for what purpose? To answer this question, one should consider the following statement. The benefit of blogs is that everybody can add to the conversation: the problem of blogs is that everybody can add to the conversation. Both the benefit and problems with blogs comes from the structure of blogs, the very nature of them.
It is true that blogs do have an egalitarian, class-neutralizing effect on discourse, but they also are inherently problematic, because anyone can add to a blog or thread, including those working to plant abjectly false or pernicious information into the political realm. Additionally, the ethos of the blogger is always in question, mainly because of a well-documented history of political saboteurs who may be opposed to a particular viewpoint. If anyone can post in a political blog, then who is left with the charge of monitoring/mediating the discussion and the efficacy of the sources? Unlike discussion boards, blogs are open for all entries, both on and off topic. It is a self-monitored, neo-anarchistic system that thus far seems to have worked pretty well.
Overall, I believe that the openness of political blogs is beneficial. Blogs allow for open discussion, and although they may be subject to erroneously provided information or malicious disinformation, the user/reader is forced to call into question the viability and accuracy of every post. In contrast, a discussion board user and the conversations in which they are allowed to participate are controlled by a moderator. Such a facet of discussion boards prevents open dialogue, positions the moderator as a gatekeeper, and makes for an environment where the moderator can control the conversation through the threat of excluding members.
I will state that blogging’s benefits far outweigh its detriments, all of which encourage users to engage in public, political discussion that is very accessible, free from identification, if the user chooses to register under an alias, and for the most part, free from corporate controlled production and dissemination of political information.
The blogosphere, as it stands, is a fairly democratic, self-regulated political forum. Will this always be the case? Bloggers should become concerned when free transmission of digital information begins to be limited. Currently, the cost for web hosting and access, although prohibitive, are low enough to enable a high flow of information, where user can produce, disseminate, and host their own their own webspace/weblog, something that was unheard of and unwelcomed just decade ago. I equate it to publicly controlled water systems, whose maintenance and flow is regulated by the community. It is only when water systems have become privatized has the flow of water been threatened. This analogue translates well to the flow of information. When people can no longer communicate at will, then there will be cause for concern.