The Ethics of Blogging
October 31, 2009, 12:31 pm
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Advertisement
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
on October 31st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“One of the pontifical council’s consultants, Basilian Father Thomas Rosica, the head of Canada’s Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation, said the Internet and blogs have brought about a “radicalization of rhetoric,” even among Catholics.”
I suspect he’s right, and that this is one of the less fortunate aspects of the technological advance that’s given us the internet. But the real issue is not the internet or the blogs per se; it’s the dreadful polarization of thought and opinion that affects virtually every aspect of our public life today. And it may be that the internet and the blogs don’t so much cause this polarization as reflect it.
How can we change it? Charity demands that we all listen, and not simply react, to one another; and that we all realize that if we listen properly, we can all learn from one another, and thus expand our vision of what it means to be human and even to expand our occasional glimpse of the Divine.
There’s no reason that blogs can’t do this admirably. But how do we change ourselves so that we a) do not see blogs simply as a vehicle for ranting, and b) have enough humility to understand that no one of us has the entire truth, and can always learn from others?
Except, of course, in the case of the Phillies vs. the Yankees, where there can only be one correct answer, and it’s MINE.
on October 31st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
In the material presented I cannot find anything to disagree with. That love needs truth and truth needs love is hard to argue with, if you are a Christian.
on October 31st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
There is a problem with believing that the more one understands one’s opponents, the more humane we will become. But that is not necessarily true. It can also be true that the more one learns about, let’s say, a particular religion, the more one will detest that religion. Is it not true?
on October 31st, 2009 at 3:11 pm
He said Pope Benedict is an example of a good Catholic communicator: “He seeks clarity and definition while demonstrating charity and respect for others.”
This made me snile :)
I do represent myself as Catholic at my blog, but there have been some Catholic visitors who have told me I’m actually anti-Catholic in my posts ….. it can be a challenge to try to be honest, charitable, yourself, and Catholic all at the same time, but I do try.
on October 31st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I wonder if Rome will crack down on blogging bishops… ;-)
on October 31st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
There has always been differences in the church. More controlling people very early sought to eliminate those Christians who were differentthan them. They even destroyed their writings so we have very few words from other than orthodox in the first few centuries. Then Constantine endorsed this group by offering to arrest and even kill any dissidents. We only know what they said by what their antagonists wrote about them. Even with burnings and killings people like Erasmus managed to expose the folly of those who could not tolerate diversity. The rubrics in the liturgy are basically the work of control freaks.
It is ironic that the Vatican should talk abour polarization. No one polarized the church more than John Paul II who welcomed combat over his ideas and approved or initiated the quieting of many good and bright Christians. He canonized anybody and everybody but would not displease rulers by canonizing Romero.
All of us need to seek to come together. But when leadership is the principal obstacle
Polarization is right at the top and Benedict has continued it with Regensberg and other blunders. Then came the coverup of the Pius X bishop, followed by grandstanding against the Anglicans. The American bishops who aligned with one party were clear polarizers. Celli might look to where he wants to start.
on October 31st, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Crystal –
It’s one thing to be honest about facts and another thing to be honest about one’s evaluations of facts and yet another to express one’s feelings about facts. “B16 is German” expresses a fact, “I dislike B16 intensely” says something about me, not him, and “B16 is an incompetent pope” expresses an. evaluation of him, a very negative one which ought to be backed up with xpressions of facts, and such statements are often totally irrelevant to topics under discussion.
Further, alll of them can be *honest* expressions of thexwayxwe see things, but that does not imply that the statements about him are true.
The big question , I think, is when is it necessary to say what we think? Sometimes charity requires that we do not say what we think (”Your hair looks awful!), and sometimes that we say only part of what we think. I’d say that true but negatve statements about what we feel about others or their views should rarely be said, at least not publicly. Such expressions of negative feelings only cause unnecessary hurt, and that, I thnx is positively sinful. Restraint is a condition of civility.
However, neither is criticism of another’s *views* automatically rude. Sometimes we ought to criticize some views and also some behavior. But unless one is a certified prophet (and how do we identify them???) name-callng and exaggeration (excep when trying to be funny) should be out of bounds.
on October 31st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I think there’s broad consensus that there’s too much incivility on blogs and that it’s part of a broader pattern in society (fueled, in my opinion, by talk radio, talking head anylysts and reinforced by blogs.)
So the Vatican release is nice, but offers no solution.
Ann brings up what’s out of bounds, but I’m not sure that restraining negative feelings does the job.
I think real adult conversation may involve harsh criticism in several forms.
A bigger problem is to break people out of their bubbles where they only listen to what they agree with.
Civility was far less a problem when folks conversed across lines regularly long ago.
I need to say I see little hope on the horizon for change as leadership groups don’t want to go ther – there are too many power issues at stake.
on October 31st, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Ann,
About being honest – I meant to say that I do try to be honest about facts, of course, but I do also try to be honest about my feelings. That doesn’t mean being rude, but I’m not sure I see the point of having a blog that does not reflect the opinions of the blogger …. it’s not a news publication devoted only to facts …. even The Tablet and Commonweal, etc., express opinions along with facts. If, for instance, the Pope says that he had no idea that Bishop Williamson and the rest of SSPX lean towards anti-Semitism before he welcomed them back into the fold, I would be hard pressed, given what facts anyone can find if they do the research, to not express my doubts about his statement. You might say my doubts don’t matter, but the truth or falsity of the Pope’s statement would matter to those who care about the church and anti-Semitism, and I’m one of those …. maybe there are others as well.
on October 31st, 2009 at 8:23 pm
I think it’s the internet equivalent of road rage… People are sometimes more aggressive in their cars than they would be if they had to confront you in person. It’s the anonymity of the internet that allows people to communicate so aggressively; if they had to use their real names or e-mail addresses, I would bet the overall tone would usually be more restrained.
on October 31st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Crystal –
You seem to include evaluations and feelings under “opinion”. I was using it in the more restricted sense of judgment about what is so or not so, in other words, truth.
The problem with allowing feelings into discussions that search for truth is that we easily let a feeling substitute for an evaluation based on facts. For instance, I might let my jealousy of someone lead me to judge a fact about her unfairly. And feelings can cause us to leave out relevant data, distort it and even cause us to unconsciously make up stuff. They’re dangerous in serious discussions.
Because insults cause strong emotions in the person insulted, that’s another reason to avoid them. The biggest problem with snark, I think, is that people often don’t realize they are being snarky.. Someone might say quite truthfully, “you are pig-headed” but that does three things– it says you don’t change your mind easily(a fact), but also that that is a bad quality (an evaluation) and also it says that I scorn you ( an expression of my own feeling).
Complexity, complexity.
on November 1st, 2009 at 12:50 am
Ann,
I think I see what you mean, but I would have to say that in my limited experience of blogging, I have visited the blogs of many fine people who have posts that are interesting, sometimes educational, often entertaining, blogs by priests, deacons, university professors, people who are Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, not Christian – they all seem to strive to both express their feelings honstly and give relevant information. Me too – I don’t allow (to my knowledge) my feelings to make me “distort facts or make things up”, I don’t insult anyone (at least not on purpose) and I’m not snarky, though my sense of humor perhaps leaves something to be desired. If you can find a lie on my blog I’d like to hear of it.
on November 1st, 2009 at 2:12 am
Sorry, all – lost my temper. I only wanted to say that maybe one should give blogs and blogging the benefit of the doubt. I think most people blogging have no serious agenda aside from communicating with others. The fact that some Catholic bloggers may disagree with the Pope or the Church doesn’t make them prevaricating nutballs.
on November 1st, 2009 at 2:44 am
Bob Schwarz:
You wrote,
What leads you to that conclusion?
on November 1st, 2009 at 3:09 am
A wise and timely message. The Vatican is clearly embarrassed by some of its over-the-top supporters — who are also likely to turn on it with rage if it does not satisfy their personal standards of “orthodoxy”.
on November 1st, 2009 at 9:08 am
How many bishops have blogs, anyway? and for what it’s worth, I think there is also phenomenon of reading blogs you disagree with, to get yourself all riled up. Kind of like picking at a cut in your soul until it becomes infected.
on November 1st, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Crystal –
I sorry if ididn t make myself clear. I certainly didn’t
t mean to imply that your posts are dishonest in any way. But there is a great deal of evidence that people — all of us — have unconscious feelings and thoughts which often automatically and unconsciously distort or perceptions of what is so. These feelings and thoughts change our perception of the evidence and force conclusions which we mght not reach if our deliberations were more objective. Sometimes it’s a simple matter of misreading what is written. Other times it’s more complex.
The hellish part is that we don’t really know when the unconscious forces are operating. And this is why, I think, we are morally bound to listen to criticisms of our own views — even though we try to be honest and tell the truth *as we see it*, we might be wrong , and it is by listening to others with opposing views that we might correct our mistakes. The same is true, of course, of our opponents.
Yes, we are interested in our friends’ feelngs, but feelngs are not themselves evidence. They are subjective reactions to evidence.
on November 1st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I like to see people blogging but I wouldn’t take their posts too seriously. I view assertions delivered in that medium as more or less equivalent to pronouncements one makes at the end of a meal with a group of friends and some good wine — a little bit too unbuttoned, sometimes; unsophisticated, usually, revealing of people’s personalities, often; and not to be over-analyzed, for sure!
As to internet and blogs causing polarization: I have heard this theory before and find it very believable. I used to watch the news on national TV, like everyone else on a few channels, read one or two of a few major newspapers — we had the same, or similar, basic news from which to form opinions. Now I get information on the internet, where I read selected web sites: it’s much more fragmented, I am in my own little bubble with the other readers of those web sites, and it is now almost impossible for me to find common ground with my conservative Texan relatives: we no longer simply have different hierarchies of values through which to see the world: instead, the “reality” that is now presented to us is completely different for me and for them, even before we apply our personal interpretations.
on November 1st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Claire –
Sadly, I have to agree with you. What these different bubbles prove is that diversity is not an absolute value.