Boing Boing’d

I’ve been reading Boing Boing for over two years now–not long enough to consider myself a part of the community, but long enough to be familiar with its trends and how the blog conducts itself.

Initially, I loved it. It was an alternative source of news, a catchall resource for under-the-radar culture, filling the gaps that mainstream media left. I can recall constantly saying to friends in my dorm, “There was this post on Boing Boing…” I was just latching on to RSS feeds, and it was by far the most prolific and most often read of my feeds.

Over the past year, this relationship has been tempered with a slice of objectivity and a pinch of analysis. As my online reading habits have shifted to include more diverse mass media sources and more specifically focused blogs, I’ve become more critical of Boing Boing’s approach toward certain subject matter, religion being the first topic that raised my eyebrows.

Scientology has come up a lot in the past couple years–too much for my taste, to be frank. The internet-generated “protests” at different Scientology centers has brought out the worst in both the religious group and anti-religious web junkies. It’s been akin to a hipper, younger anti-cult movement. Remember when Dungeons & Dragons and hair metal was compared to Satanism? I don’t, but I’ve read about it, and the principal dissenters in those cases were extraordinarily out of the loop and ignorant. Now the term “cult” has revived, primarily aimed at the Fundmentalist Latter-Day Saints and Scientology. I would expect that from the less-reputable parts of the mass media (e.g. Oprah asking dramatically on an episode dealing with FLDS, “Is this a cult?” as if the word itself were potent enough on its own to mean something).

Yet Boing Boing consistently uses the term “cult” in referring to any number of new religious movements, particularly in California. It’s haphazard, it promotes ignorance and intolerance, and it’s bad writing. It’s particularly bad journalism, no matter the source; even if the claims of shadiness levied at Scientology are legitimate (and they are), slander and hostile attitudes will do nothing to accurately cover the story or inform any readers. A comment on one Scientology post remarked that “Boingers call ‘em like they see ‘em,” a defense which can be used to defend any claim, researched or not. In the case of this comment, the claim is clearly ill-researched, poorly founded and badly constructed.

This difference I have with the site is a matter of a personal editorial position, and I can accept that. Because their coverage of religion is midguided at times doesn’t mean the site as a whole is worthless. Their presentation of religious issues led me to read each post with a more critical eye, which isn’t a bad thing.

However, a recent controversy I’ve encountered has led me to reconsider my entire position regarding the site. Long known for championing net neutrality, a rollback of draconian intellectual property laws, and transparency in government, Boing Boing is often at the forefront of 21st century issues regarding governmental and private organizations’ duty to the public. That status has now been called into question by the bizarre removal of sometime contributor Violet Blue’s posts.

Two recent posts on her blog have raised the issue: mysterious erasure of almost all mention of her name. I personally found Violet Blue thanks to her contributions to Boing Boing, so this was somewhat alarming. The digital age allows for modification and deletion of things posted in the past, but the practice widely regarded as unethical when done in a non-transparent way. Unfortunately, all evidence points to that being the case here, as Violet Blue’s most recent post on the matter mentions.

Now I’m left with the question of what to do when a supposed leader of digital ethics has done something strangely and silently unethical. It’s their site, and theirs to run as they see fit–I allowed that on the issue of religion. This matter, however, severely tarnishes their reputation as a progressive and culturally-significant website in my eyes.

It would seem the same problems that plague old media can be found in new media, and it’s a little disheartening. Another case of when the cynic wishes he was wrong. «»

Update: See also “That Boing Boing thing.” (2008-07-02)