| Proud Sponsor |
|
| News Sections |
|
|
| Membership |
|
|
| Features |
|
| Sponsored by |
|
| About the Smugtown Beacon |
|
|
| |
|
| The Beacon vs. the Bloggers |
By: Aaron E. Wicks
|
Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009 6:30 am
|
Rochester, NY (May 22, 2009) -- In the past week, my co-publisher Chris Wilmot has responded to two separate personal attacks on him in local blogs. I wholeheartedly support my friend and business partner in defending his name. It can be difficult to do this when you know who your opponent is -- it is virtually impossible when he or she remains nameless and faceless as these critics have.
This commentary, though, is not designed to contribute directly to those exchanges -- but rather to provide a bit of background for some of our newer readers who might not know what prompted Mr. Wilmot and myself to launch the Smugtown Beacon and why we take the approach we do.
First of all, though some of our readers may not believe it, the name “Smugtown Beacon” is one born of deep love for our hometown. Both Mr. Wilmot and I were born and raised in the greater Rochester area and we have both had our opportunities to move away from it. But -- like many of you -- we chose to stay for a variety of reasons, mostly because it just happens to be “home” and for some of us, that means a lot.
“Smugtown” is not meant as an insult. The reference -- as we have noted previously -- is to Curt Gerling’s book “Smugtown USA”, which we characterize as a “gentle” critique of Rochester’s folkways when it was arguably at its peak in the 1950’s. To us, “Smugtown” refers to Rochester’s continued overestimation of itself and in particular, to the social and political elites’ overestimation of their own importance. If Mr. Wilmot and I occasionally come off as “smug” ourselves it is, at least partially, an intentional parody of the very qualities we challenge in others (though we both admit to occasionally being, unintentionally, somewhat arrogant).
The “Beacon” part of the name should be clear enough -- we try to shine some light on things that too often lay uncovered or not fully discussed. We do not claim to have a monopoly on the light of truth -- indeed, we do not even claim to argue for ”truth.” We believe it is important for debates to occur, for assumptions to be challenged and for bad behavior by powerful people to be exposed (because far too much of it is shrugged off as acceptable behavior). While we see other independent media like MonroeRising, RochesterTurning and Mustard Street as competitors, we also enthusiastically welcome the debates that have occurred across these sites. Together, we are bringing some fresh ideas to a Rochester that has long-suffered a declining and insipid Gannett publication, the Democrat and Chronicle.
Indeed, this helps explain how the Beacon was born. Back in the fall of 2007, Mr. Wilmot and I discussed our mutual dissatisfaction with Rochester media. The issue had been simmering for a while with me. Having co-managed Tim Mains’ campaign for mayor in 2005, I learned first-hand how lazy and unquestioning many of the local mainstream media could be. No, this is not the bitterness of a defeated candidate’s manager, it is a genuine conclusion from very close observation. Would more intense, more thorough media scrutiny have changed the outcome of the 2005 race? Perhaps not, but it would have engaged voters in several issues that never got the attention they needed -- and it might have put the ultimate winner of that race on the record in a way that he never was -- and still is not.
By 2007, I was on the losing end of another campaign -- this time Jim Bowers’ campaign for City Council. But this time, there was a particularly vicious tactic that appeared in the media that I could not abide, and I vowed to find a way to fight it. An anonymous blogger was posting very personal, very inflammatory and very inaccurate information about Mr. Bowers on the Democrat and Chronicle website. While it was a hard-fought and occasionally muddy campaign, the tactics used by this individual (I will assume he or she was acting independently, and not on behalf of Councilmember Lovely Warren) were absolutely reprehensible. They were akin to a whispering campaign by Klan members or Nazis -- and it is not mere coincidence that both those groups magnified their power through the effective use of communications strategies. One of those strategies: anonymity.
I vowed that I could not ever be a party to such tactics. Mr. Wilmot heartily agreed. As a result, the Beacon welcomes all manner of comments on what appears in it -- but only if the commentators use their name and their location. This used to be common practice in the mainstream media, but in a race to the bottom to make media more interactive and fresh, it was abandoned by virtually all media outlets.
So we founded the Smugtown Beacon in late 2007 with two key principles in mind: transparency and accountability. This meant we would use our names and that we would not pretend to be unbiased in our writing. Say what you will about our stories (and we’ve just about heard it all at this point), we always strive to be as blunt and honest about what we observe and conclude. And sometimes we might get it wrong -- but if we do, every single reader knows exactly how they can set the record straight. We are not difficult to reach.
By contrast, we find most blogs (the anonymous ones, at least) to be accountable to no one and most mainstream media to be anything but transparent. Mainstream media coverage of politics is noticeably biased. but where liberals see a corporate bias and conservatives see a liberal bias, I see a more insidious bias: a bias against taking on some of the very people and institutions they rely on for their support. As a journalist, I’ve experienced that pressure first-hand: if I write a negative story about this or that politician will I alienate that person and no longer get information or commentary from them? The journalist has to decide whether to write that story or not almost every day. Here at the Beacon, the voice inside our heads (or at least in mine) says “write the story.”
One of our critics, a blogger who goes by the name "John Locke" and who posts commentary on Moonbat Over Monroe, recently explained his/her anonymity:
“So it's an easy form of courage for such an individual to affix his signature after each unfair, irrational rant he posts on the Internet. And it's even easier for him to ascribe cowardice to those whose real motivation is instead cautious self-preservation: We have opinions we'd like to share and arguments to make, but we're not quite ready to embrace unemployment and homelessness in order to do it.”
“Locke” essentially argued that Mr. Wilmot’s wealth permits him the luxury of using his name, whereas mere working class mortals must hide.
As someone who lives paycheck to paycheck and whose employment is not completely disconnected from the public affairs on which I comment, I can say that I genuinely sympathize with “Locke’s” argument. But I also know that one makes decisions in life and one must accept the consequences of them. Both Mr. Wilmot and I have alienated friends and jeopardized relationships that affect our lives in a number of different ways. We do not ask for sympathy or praise or understanding. We are adults who have made decisions in our lives that we stand by. And I for one, feel it is perfectly justifiable to ask why others have chosen different paths. Perhaps I will learn that the anonymous bloggers were right to hide their names, and I have been wrong all this time.
The broader concern here is where does one draw the line between protecting their interests and being public in their policy positions? Isn’t there always some vulnerability one exposes oneself to by taking a public position? Couldn’t I always argue that I “can’t afford” (politically, financially, socially, egotistically) to publicly state my views? To me, this is reminiscent of the aspiring pol who, confronted with taking a genuine position and compromising in the name of his political advancement, pursues the latter course. One compromise leads to another, all in the name of the greater good: achieving that next higher level of political power where the pol can have a “real impact.” But that time never occurs: the ambitious pol chases this elusive goal, constantly pursuing re-election or higher office but never feels the time is auspicious to take the stand that could make a difference.
So, with no particular animosity to John Locke (the blogger, the philosopher or the character on “Lost”) and the other anonymous bloggers in the area, I say, let us continue this debate, but let us do so in public. I will not judge those who do not choose to use their names -- because I do not even know who they are -- but I do say this to my fellow Rochesterians: caveat emptor. Both decent people and scoundrels have contributed to public debate from the shadows -- and in the darkness, it can be difficult to tell which is which.
Finally, to those who have been regular readers of the Beacon, we thank you for your readership. You have made the Smugtown Beacon a local institution. We will continue to do our best to be provocative, entertaining and informative. But if we fail on all three counts, at least you know whose name to curse....
|
|
Printer-friendly format
|
Member Opinions:
By: Matt on 5/29/09
In the spirit of disclosure, I will state I am the brother of the author, so indeed, my opinion is a strong and biased one. Of course, I will also state, he and I do not always see eye to eye and I do not always defend his statements or opinions. In this particular case, I will state that in the age of endless outlets for espousing personal opinions with little or no consequence, it is at a minimum refreshing to see those who not only take the positin of standing firmly behind their statements and opinions, but also require the same of those submitting commentary. As the common expressions states opinions are very much like certain orifices and we all indeed have them. Some of those more vociferous in their opinions resemble those very orifices and unfortunately choose to hide behind catchy monikers. I can not speak directly to the blog entries which are referenced here, but I can say that all too often annonymity is used as an excuse to say and act in ways we would never normally consider.
Login and voice your opinion!
|
|
|
