- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Is anecdotal evidence. Do people not get that?
What kind of people comment on blogs? Who knows!?! Are they crazy people? People with too much time on their hands? Are they representative of anyone or anything? Are they mostly computer literate? Do they skew towards IT workers? Do people make crazy comment posts just because they can?
Some random comments are not evidence of anything. If you want to do at least a somewhat rational analysis you would compare the volume of "Cheney should die" comments to other comments. That would still be horribly flawed but at least slightly better.
I can find someone who says Cheney should die, I can find someone who says that 9/11 was what we deserved. I can find someone who says liberals caused 9/11, that Edwards is a faggot and that Obama is uppity.
What matters is *who* is saying this. What stage are they on? What respect are they given?
When someone has best-sellers or a column in a major newspaper you assume they have some support and represent something. When someone is invited to a large conservative gathering as a speaker you assume they represent conservatives in some way.
When someone writes a blog comment there is no indication that they are anything more than a lone voice. I can say right now that I think the world is flat and I'm not speaking for liberals, or for Salon readers. I'm only speaking for me.
I have an opinion. George Bush has an opinion. Random commenter has an opinion. Some opinions deserve more scrutiny than others.
It is amazing that people don't get this. A random blog commenter does not have a national stage, is not invited to conventions, does not go on TV, have best selling books, help shape or justify policy.
Everyone has an opinion but the opinions that deserve the most scrutiny are the opinions of thought leaders. Simple concept.
