Public Debate - Virtually

As I have said in a previous post, I used to "inhabit" a bulletin board along with a number of other (in their own unique ways)people. The topics were wide and various; the contributions ranged from blatant troll to the well thought and logical to the downright incoherent. There were oftentimes criticism of individuals for their style of post (I was not immune either).

But really, none of that prepared me for the public forums attached to some of the leading newspapers.

Since the loss of the 'Can, I have been lurking around in the depths of the New York Times, Granny Herald (The NZ ...), Washington Post, trying to find somewhere where there is a level of personal engagement (that does not mean conflict, but rather interest in, and contribution to, the progression of a debate) and honest, objective, and open discussion.

Needless to say, all that I have found thus far has been parochial claptrap, the repetitive chanting of political mantras, selective listening and selective hearing, and continual complaints of personal abuse and "labelling". Again, I do not hold myself above these perceived "faults". There have been times when I have excluded individual contributors from consideration...simply because there was no future in listening.

This being the case, where is the need for public fora such as these?

Is there a better "level of debate" in, for example, some of the more politically inclined blogs out in blogland?

Again, based upon a very small and totally unrepresentative sample, I have to regretfully say that I have yet to find one. The general approach in blogland seems to be "pick a blog you like, link it if you wish, follow their links, leave the occasional comment..."

The pity of this approach is that it tends to leave out any debate.

"Prospectors" in blogland seek commentators and blogs that confirm and support their current beliefs and attitudes.

In the same way, the blog holders are selective in the comments that they accept and publish. Who can blame them when a comment can be as bad as "I think you are a F*****G W******R" and worse.

Only rarely (very rarely) did the 'Can get this bad, but I have seen (for example the "Middle East" thread at NYT) fora closed down or erased in an attempt to get some kind of reason and civility back into their site.

So, the problems of minimal objectivity, minimal logic, and minimal coherency seem to be universal.

Do not get me wrong, there are some very interesting, and thoughtful people publishing through this medium. I wish that I had their time and their dedication to the task of keeping a blog running over a period of time.

Am I sorry that no one leaves comments on my blog? No.

Does anyone visit my blog? Don't know, don't care really.