In his latest post, my nephew makes a great point about some blogs don’t lose credibility even when in attempting to dig up dirt on a political figure, their dirt is just that, accusations or insinuations without any basis in reality.
What develops is a situation similar to that of the Boy Who Cried Wolf where a series of false reports about a candidate leads to people discounting other damaging, but true stories. Not just that, it allows the candidate to compare the true story to the false one, suggesting it’s just an underhanded attempt to discredit him.
As Mitchell puts it:
My point is that with all this misinformation about Obama, it is hard to believe much of what comes out about him and most of what comes out about him is on the internet. The mainstream media is the guardian of the truth. If they lie, they have to stand up and admit their mistake. If a blog lies, they will just continue to lie the next day because there isn’t any accountability. They have a small audience that agrees with them, so no one is going to stop reading them.
I don’t know that I agree entirely with him that there’s no accountability. Other bloggers may call their accounts into question. And the blogger may further pigeonhole himself. But, Mitchell’s definitely onto something in the final sentence from the passage above. Bloggers may lose out in gaining a broader audience, but will retain the ideological partisans who religiously read their posts.
But, even some bloggers with strong convictions will take the time to debunk bogus stories which attempt to put their ideological adversaries in a bad light. Glenn Reynolds notes how “right-leaning blogs” have been doing just that when rumors about presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama start to surface.
I wonder if any liberal bloggers have been making a similar effort to debunk rumors which put the presumptive Republican nominee’s war record in a bad light. Or which question his recollection of that good man’s experiences while incarcerated.