Politically Incorrect:
Just Plain Incorrect About the Web

I am incredulous after watching Politically Incorrect earlier tonight. One of the participants paid $47,000 in an eBay auction to be on the show. Host Bill Maher said it proves his opinion that the Internet is all about ego. It wasn't clear if the man necessarily has any Internet ties, beyond the auction.

The man, Darrin Farrow, did himself no favors by calling himself a financial advisor and sending in a photograph of himself in a suit before the show, but showing up shirtless, adding "model" to his list of professions and plugging a poster of his shirtless self. It was pretty creepy.

Much to my surprise, Maher focussed his vitriol on online journals. I was shocked someone who scorns the Internet (this isn't the first time he's belittled it) would even be aware OLJs exist. Others on the panel went on to say that people who are spending that time online, are missing out on the "real" world. (As if word-addicted people like myself would be Hollywood scenesters but for the Internet.) Further, Maher scoffed at panelist Bill O'Reilly's assertion that OLJs were just an natural extension of the talk show/reality TV model (which for many, they clearly are).

Maher insisted they [himself and panelists Drew Carey and O'Reilly] worked hard to be on TV, so why should idiots with web pages get so much attention. I defy him to learn all the technical aspects of TV production and not only not be paid handsomely for it, but pay for the privilege out of his own pocket.

I've learned html, some Java Script and am contemplating Perl. Further, I've learned to work with images in ways I never imagined I would. I took computer programming and photography courses in high school and performed terribly in them. I have learned and grown far more by teaching myself these skills vis-a-vis my web sites. Paying what I do to maintain the sites has made me stick with it.

While I don't deny part of the reason I keep a journal online is ego-based, probably the biggest reason is to reach out to people with similar interests, ideas and experiences. It has also been one of the most enriching parts of this journey for me and why I haven't given up when I get discouraged. I do believe we're leaving a document of these times, as well as developing community.

When I hear that criticized as strange or pathetic, I cannot help but think the speaker distrusts the process partly due to ignorance, partly insecurity and partly due to a lack of vision. I don't propose that in the future all communities or relationships will or should be formed online. However, it has been a boon to people like me who value finding like minds, rather than limiting their human interactions to those who share only their geographical proximity.

It becomes a chicken/egg question. Long before the Internet I was big on correspondance -- I had pen pals and kept in touch with long distance friends for years. I even befriended my favorite rock band sight unseen, through letters and phone calls. It seems to me that all of the best things that have ever come my way have been the result of my words, so email and my web sites have been a natural extension of that.

It's rather elitist for an overpaid TV comedian to suggest that common folk have nothing to say that anyone else would be interested in (web statistics would suggest otherwise). On the contrary, I think the growing popularity of online journals is due to readers being better able to empathize with the experiences of everyday people than they can with, for example, 6 gorgeous twentysomethings who live in Manhattan apartments they could never afford in real life.

When I look back at history or when I read books set 100 years ago, what I lament is the dearth of personal stories and details of daily life. What I found most fascinating in the Little House [book] series, for example, is how they ate, how they made things, how they did the wash -- their feelings and desires are comfortingly similar to ours today. What I want to know when I read a book is who were the haves? The have nots? How was this determined (sex/race/religion)?

Our experience of those same chores, our very lifestyle, is vastly different 100 years later, as I'm sure our descendents' descriptions shall be 100 years hence. It's important that we have this sense of history. After all, people who share Maher's opinion can ignore stories they don't care to read, but the rest of us can do nothing about those that were never written.

I'm suspicious when people on television and in magazines tell the masses what the Internet is and is not, particularly people who claim not to use it, like Maher. The Internet is the first major competition television has had and no one knows where it will go next. Further, unlike the vast majority of media outlets, it is not entirely controlled by any major corporation. That is Maher's excuse for questioning its validity. Heaven forbid the people espouse their own views when Maher, ABC and television in general are so anxious to dictate them.

From Maher's perspective, I suppose it's all well and good if the masses are interacting with Politically Incorrect's site in lieu of personal sites. He neglected to mention the faux-community ABC has tried to build around shows like his -- complete with bulletin boards so fans can view ads, I mean, discuss the show. Perhaps Maher can take comfort in the fact that the Politically Incorrect web site loads only 25% of the time.

Such holier-than-thou disregard for the Internet is particularly mean-spirited considering the fact that the Internet is increasingly corporate and less personal and innovative with every passing day. Corporations, networks, record companies, advertising whortals (MSN, Yahoo) and newspapers have sunk billions into Internet ventures, trying not only to keep their viewer/readerships, but to double count all those eyeballs by driving traffic to duplicate or ancillary content online. No one wastes more bandwidth than the sites of TV shows, channels and networks.

While I don't necessarily believe personal sites and online journals are serious market share competition for the networks, I find it interesting that Maher would cite them specifically and repeatedly. Throughout human history, the means of production, media included, have been in an extremely small number of hands. By contrast, this form of publication is relatively inexpensive.

The net is still new and some will take it to extremes (many would argue that I do), I don't doubt that. The pendulum always swings between extremes before resting in the middle. Yes, there are nuts on the Internet. There are nuts everywhere. However, as a woman and a minority, I'm familiar with this tactic of using a few oddballs as the extreme, yet allegedly representative, example and painting an entire (presumed homogenous) community/demographic with the nutcase brush. It's despicable.

It isn't implausible to think that networks and TV stars like Maher are miffed because people like Pamie have attracted tens of thousands of visitors while paying $0 for marketing and advertising. I wonder if Maher receives 100 fan letters a day.

Moreover, online journallers and people running personal sites enjoy greater free speech than anyone on television could ever dream. I can say whatever I want on my site, offend whomever I want (or don't want, but who get offended anyway), short of threatening the president. That is the beauty and the danger of any freedom. I try to write responsibly about worthwhile things, so I expect not to be characterized by nor held responsible for the actions of others who happen to use this same medium for self-expression.

It costs me, but as I learned in my college newspaper days, even with with so little at stake, I disdained being beholden to the powers that be. Nor need I concern myself with consumers who might boycott the products of my sponsors, because I have none.

For me, the decision to self publish was a good one. $30 a year for a domain and $9 a month for hosting is a bargain when I think of the headaches I'm spared and the giant space to explore my creativity in writing, design and photography. Indeed, the feedback I've received from my online writing has encouraged me to seek traditional publication.

That's more than I can say for the last writing course I took in which the professor singled out my novel pitch as something with no broad appeal. He suggested people like me try self-publication. That petty put down was the best advice I could have followed at that point in my writing career. In fact, had I pursued traditional, rather than web, publication at that time, I might never have taken the time to rediscover my love of photography.

The online community is nothing if not generous with its talents. There is a wealth of incredible writing, photography, design and artwork available on the web for free. Better still, there is a good, old-fashioned system of apprenticeship by which web developers pass on their knowledge. As I was taught tricks with code and graphics, so have I passed on this knowledge.

I doubt such generosity and non-competitiveness is a frequent occurence in the cutthroat world of network television. I find that spirit of generosity inspiring -- and revolutionary.