One of the most interesting and useful developments that the internet has brought The Common Man in recent years is wikipedia, the on-line, community authored and regulated encyclopedia that is, apparently, just as reliable (and far more topical) than the vaunted Encyclopedia Britannnica. Now, wikipedia has its faults and no one should consider using it for, say, a graduate level research paper. But to do quick, dirty, and informal research, it's hard to imagine a more convenient source. Want to know more about the wackiness of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard? Wikipedia's got you covered. Want to explore Kevin Federline's exploits as a professional wrestler? It's got that too. Burning to read more about Edward Said, Orientalism, and the West's romanticized portrayals of Asia and the Middle East? You're in luck. I mention all of this because wikipedia has a new competitor.
Now, the Common Man makes no secret of his own liberal bias. He does not wish to go into the intricasies of his beliefs here, but he feels the need to get this fact out of the way before he begins. For, you see, there are those in this world who would claim to be unbiased, to present their views before you as the literal, God's honest truth. In the spirit of these people, The Common Man presents The Conservapedia.
Claiming that Wikipedia was "6 times more liberal than the American public" (note: They base this claim on the rather spurious reasoning that "Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as 'conservative' compared with 'liberal', and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as 'liberal' compared with 'conservative'." Apparently somebody took 3rd grade math but skipped logic classes), the founders of Conservapedia have written off the Wiki as a lost cause and started their own site. And good for them. After all, they have every right to start their own site. But let's not pretend that theirs is some great storehouse of truth that is denied by the crazy liberals at Wikipedia, particularly as it "gives full credit to Christianity and America" and "concise, clean answers free of 'political correctness.'"
These concise and clean answers involve its entry on Fox News, which sarcasically notes that "The network has come under attacks from all sides of the political spectrum since its inception, largely for its uncritical and blatantly partisan support for the Bush administration and for the fact that it has consistantly failed to hand over Bill o'Reily to the Hague like all the other Fascists." Also, the site defends Ann Coulter as "a bestselling author of books that present conservative views in a direct and forceful manner" and is popular for for what many believe is her patriotic stances against liberals, her outspokenness against all those who wish to hurt America, and her strong defense of family values against abortion and same-sex marriage." It backs her up when she claims that her now infamous John Edwards comment "isn't offensive to gays. It has nothing to do with gays. It's a schoolyard taunt, meaning wuss," saying, "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior. Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning." Finally, the site reduces the career of Hillary Clinton, one of the most important and polarizing women of our era into health care failures, travelgate, Vince Foster, and running for President as a mom. Her legislative career? "No major legislation has been credited to Hillary Clinton."
Will Conservapedia make it in the long term? The Common Man doesn't know. He hopes not, but acknowledges that it's important for everyone to have a place to vent. After all, The Common Man has his blog in which a rather poorly written entry can get published about something that annoys him but may ultimately be of no consequence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Wow. I mean, I could stomach looking at the Hillary entry only, and that because I figured to at least agree with the sentiment of what was said (if she really is "one of the most important...women of our era," that's so only because our collective gender bias has allowed her a pitiful lack of decent competition). But that. Is. Terrible. Where do you find crap like this?
I wonder (without caring enough to actually look) whether they have any specific examples of liberal bias, or if they're basing it on the proportion of liberals to conservatives alone. Which would be truly insane. The Wikipedia entry for Mitt Romney, for instance, looks perfectly fair to me, even favorable (though horribly written, even by Wikipedian standards). So the natural response to that is, of course, to completely skewer Hillary Clinton in a completely irresponsible (and even more horribly written) way. That's brilliant.
Liberal bias in the media was really a problem once, but the conservatives don't seem to recognize that they've won. Making Fox News so disproportionately popular was like dropping the bomb. War over. I mean, it's still out there, but nobody reads the newspapers anymore anyway.
Post a Comment