John W. Jordan's article "Disciplining the Virtual Home Front", made me wonder who I trusted more, bloggers or mainstream news. During the war in Iraq, a number of blogs by journalists, soldiers and foreign nationals emerged. People like myself were drawn to these blogs because they seemed so real. I am more willing to read a book by a soldier who participated in the war or someone who lives in Iraq than someone who just recounted the news because I prefer a first hand source over a second.
In this case, the mainstream news is the second hand source. At times, I feel like the second hand sources can be either amplified or reduced. In my opinion, the mainstream news is reduced. On the news you may not hear the gruesome stories that a blogger who may have seen or experienced. This is why I like blogs. The only problem with blogs is that you may not know who wrote it or if they are a credible source. But then again, who is a credible source?
When it comes to war, who can you really trust? During the Vietnam War, the American public was lied to all the time by American generals like William Westmoreland about casualties, war events, etc... When he and others lied it was reported to the American public by the news. So, if there is a chance that the mainstream news is unknowingly reporting lies, and the blogs aren't backed by sources, who can you really trust?
I don't have an answer to my questions, but the best thing one can do is look at various sources whether it be blogs, news, journals and compare and contrast. I look at both news and blogs but I prefer which ever gives me a personal story about someone who has seen or personally been affected by the war in Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment