Dissect Dissected II

Where we look at the perceptions of the panelists and where we hope to close the issue of the subject once and for all.It’s taking us longer than we expected to do this little round-up of the programme. You’d think we’d be fixated (and you might be true) but there are one or two observations that we would not like to let slip and we will not allow an overloaded agenda to weigh heavily on whether or not to continue the discussion.

The Subject (one last time)

A discussion on whether or not the subject should have been blogs or one particular blogs is intrinsically related to the issue of the perception of blogs itself. Again, I reiterate that when I was contacted the main subject of the blog would be the effect of Plategate on the blogging scene. Metaphorically it was the Plategate’s inches against the blogosphere’s centimetres. I can understand resentment that Reno did not discuss how the blogs in Malta evolved and how they can be used for educational purposes (as the man writing the letter to the Times complained) but to be fair to Reno those were not the terms of the program.

Now here is an open criticism intended to be fair: I can understand, and would agree, that in the evaluation of the impact of two particular blogs (the Runs and TYOM) on the perception of blogging in Malta it would have been better to have more than one blogger commenting on the program. Definitely. That does not mean that the Alex’s and Austin’s did not (knowingly or inadvertently) have their place on the programme for reasons I will explain below.

To conclude though, Plategate was the subject. Blogs – their use, their popularity, their influence and their potential dangers – were being scrutinised from that point of view. Now we can choose to disagree on the choice of subject or on the content – but let’s keep both issues differentiated. One last remark. The Times letter mentions the educational use of blogs – I agree.  I helped my mother set up a series of blogs for Stella Maris College’s Junior School. The school project went along quite well and the students’ interest in the topic was increased when they saw their stories published online. There’s loads more uses – recently there has been a hike in the number of specialised blogs that dot the scene – like recipe blogs, photo blogs, single parent blogs etc. (Allow me to plug the not too active Blogs of Malta as a platform to register Maltese blogs). Fact remains, Dissett was about Plategate and its effect.

The Age gap?

I was intrigued by the reactions of Austin Bencini and Alex Sciberras. They both come from a different age group. Alex comes from one of the last generations to not have grown up fully immersed in the internet business. Austin, if I may use the term liberally, represents a conservative generation – and a particular slice of it. It was evident from his answers that Austin was still coming to terms with the very idea of the “internet” let alone “blogs” and “blogging” which is why many devoted bloggers and blogwatchers will have felt “insulted” by his comments.

Ten years ago (yes TEN, 10) I started working around in law firms (due to a series of unforseeable circumstances I ended up doing quite a merry go round before settling down). Ten years ago it was evident that “the internet” was the place to go yet I still remember the great wall of denial erected in whichever establishment I worked. Two law firms, one governmental entity and a university department – all of which recognised the need of engaging with the new medium but looked at it as warily as an Aztec would have looked at a horse.

The generation running those law firms – most of which has feelers in the important nodes and networks of this country – still has an ambivalent attitude towards the internet (let alone blogging). It is, in their heart of hearts, a necessary evil. What democracy is to political systems, internet and its explosive effect is to the comfortable status quo of the old guard. Austin Bencini, whether he admits it or not, is living, breathing proof of this. It’s the Austin Bencini’s of this world who will take something like the Times and attempt to mould the internet around it rather than vice-versa. Something like the Times is comfortable with the current status quo – where it has cushioned itself as THE authoritative voice on the island. Anything that threatens to be a platform for other voices to reach the masses is very dangerous to the Times and its likes.

Take Austin Bencini’s reaction to my mirror metaphor. He claims that Malta was just as ugly in the thirties and fourties (yeah right – I’d love to see a Runs or TYOM post side by side with the satire pre-censorship rules). More interestingly though he lets slip that what changed between then and now is the hand of the editor. In other words, the control of the few has let us see a deformed (either sanitized or distorted depending on whether you agree or not) view of ourselves. In other words, Bencini is telling us that this will change with blogging – and he is right (though it took him and his like quite some time to find out). Where Bencini and the rest of us differ is on the reaction to this new phenomenon.

Uncharacteristically, Bencini seems to provoke in the direction of regulation. He seems to think that bloggers can stand up and say that they are above the law. Wrong. Or maybe he knows that it is wrong but is not saying it. Alex agreed with my point that regulation is nonsensical. There are many reasons but the primary fact is that rules already exist  and – until the current media establishment and PLPN are allowed to soil them completely – they can still be applied to blogs in the same way that they are applied to other media. One suspects that Bencini’s generation would prefer the regulation to maintain the current corridors of power (forming and influencing) intact.

Whether it is new critical voices or former bulldogs now off their leash that we are talking about, the establishment would rather have them “regulated” and “controlled” than adapt and engage. Do not underestimate the importance of making it seem that other voices do not exist: that they are nobodies. What David calls marginalisation does not happen because we are not effective but because we are effective. The Bondi’s, the Borg’s, the Times’ of this world will not engage in our discussion because they fear that they would give us too much exposure in their world.

They are trying to gag us by ignoring us into submission. What they have failed miserably to realise is that that they are too late. Political blogs (and I am forced to make that qualification not to drag other blogs into the issue) are here to stay.

Enough for now.