Who has been staying on top of it?
Bloggers like our own Squirrel (who got himself mentioned in Christianity Today for it), and this guy, and this guy, and on and on.
Caner's employer, Liberty University, at first brushed it off. Bafflingly, dean Elmer Towns said this concerning the charge that Caner lied about his history: "It's not an ethical issue, it's not a moral issue." Huh? Lying, not a moral or ethical issue? See now, I would have said it was. But maybe that's me.
Towns also said, "We don't see any way that bloggers will damage Liberty."
Fast-forward: now, LU is indeed investigating Caner.
But to make sure everyone is absolutely clear, LU issued this statement yesterday:
“Liberty University does not evaluate personnel based upon blogs.
“However, in light of the fact that mainstream media have recently raised questions, the provost of Liberty University is appointing a committee to look into these matters.”Ohhhh.
That's funny to me on many levels. At the very least, it makes no sense.
Those days are gone, long gone. People now look back unfondly at the death-grip that CBSABCNBC and the various Timeses used to have on the flow of information. With Algore's invention of the internet, the doors flew open, and real live people flooded out.
In case after case, bloggers have scooped or corrected the mainstream media. Ask Dan Rather. Well, don't bother, he's still in denial. But when CBS was perverting information to try to "get" President Bush, bloggers saw through it.
I recall the lockstep pack journalism of the days of The Nameless One. hard, independent questions were asked exceedingly rarely, and only under extreme pressure. Any reporter who got out of line and asked something challenging got a red-faced chewing out from TNO himself.
I recall the last election season, the extremely selective reporting, the entire MSM completely taking a pass on its duty to vet Obama's background.
I'm following the news now, where only one agency (Fox) occasionally asks a challenging question, and gets isolated and excoriated as a result.
Yeah, the mainstream media. They are the guarantors of objectivity and accuracy.
And I'm the king of Pluto.
What is more, saying "blogs" is like saying "communication," or "what people write." They might as well said, "Liberty University does not evaluate personnel based upon communication," or "based upon what people write" — except that that would sound, you know, stupid.
Which is precisely what it is. Stupid.
Look, if you're in a room, and someone says something dismissive about "blogs," and everyone rolls his eyes and nods sagely, you are in a room full of people who actually don't know anything about blogs.
Are blogs meaningful? Accurate? Responsible? Contentful? Reliable?
Well, let me ask you this: are conversations meaningful? Accurate? Responsible? Contentful? Reliable?
Is human communication meaningful? Accurate? Responsible? Contentful? Reliable?
You'd say, "It all depends on who you are talking with."
Was that so hard?
Someone explain that to Liberty — and to pastors and writers and others who sniff disdainfully at "blogs."
Postscript: I notice that those who complain most disdainfully about blogs and bloggers in general — as if they were cuss-words — are often those about whom inconvenient truths have been blogged. Not always, but often.