Meta-blogging n'@

The Burgh Report and 2 Political Junkies separately meta-communicated about their blogs in two different ways. 2 Political Junkies was commenting on how people can take some facts, ignore others, and try to spin the world to their desired position. The Burgh Report wanted to lay down the law.

Interestingly, Stanley Fish in the NYTimes had commented on the 2PJ topic some time ago, using the example of how liberals were pissed that the administration says the economy is going well. Fish noted that the indicators the administration is interested in do show a thriving economy, such as the stock market, corporate profits and economic growth. But wait, say the liberals, what about stagnant middle class wages and a growing income disparity? Not related to the strength of the economy, says the administration. Fish's point, just because someone cites a viewpoint supported with facts that you disagree with doesn't make them evil, just choosy.

The example the 2PJ’s gave was a bit more clear-cut, someone on a call in show saying that the only way to reduce teen pregnancy is through abstinence only education policies (this to reduce poverty). In fact, we do know that abstinence only teaching does not work, but the caller wanted it their own way. 2PJ’s sees it as their mission to make sure the facts are correct.

Over on the Burgh Report was a post laying down some rules. Passions seem to run high on that blog, where the comments often run into the double digits. Partisans of many stripes seem to visit there, and often seem disinclined to control their passions (or vocabulary). I often find myself in agreement with the blog’s authors, so I’m not going to criticize. Still, I have to say if you try to be a lightening rod, you might get shocked occasionally.