My posting Embracing bloggers - Disgracing bloggers posted this morning in malaysiakini’s blog corner, seems to have raised a lot of hackles. Bloody loose cannon KTemoc ;-)
But regrettably some bloggers missed the entire point in their inability to differentiate between the voice and/or pronouncement of the individual blogger against those of the proposed blogger alliance known as all-blog.
As I stated: Now, this is not to say that the individual blogger may not have political affiliation. Indeed, it would be an anathema to the principle of freedom of expression to curb any blogger from supporting a party through his/her blog.
That, I believe, has been quite straightforward and unambiguous.
Yet I still read of pontificating arguments on one’s right to be affiliated with whoever, or neutrality is incompatible with free speech, or that news media themselves have proclivities.
Those arguments are non-arguments, as they are totally irrelevant in the light of my stated position on freedom of expression for the individual bloggers, but worse, served only to obfuscate the issue under debate.
My point on the all-blog visit to Anwar Ibrahim was that, for an apolitical organisation, it was ill conceived to make such a controversial visit. Are we saying we don’t know who Anwar Ibrahim is?
If it's about engagement, then let's engage with an authority who wants to curtail our freedom, and convince them not to do so; but instead the all-blogs committee paid a visit to their bête noire. Brilliant!
Please don’t forget that when the two leading lights of the all-blogs were harassed by certain parties, most of us had come out to support them unequivocally. By that association we are already party to their subsequent formation of all-blogs. Additionally, the alliance has the unfortunate moniker of ‘all-blogs’, implying that we have been complicit in the visit to Anwar Ibrahim.
Whether we like Anwar Ibrahim is totally irrelevant, but when an organisation, purportedly representing us one way (by virtue of our support of the two leaders) or another (by its title of all-blogs) ventured on an unexpected political visit, we have the right to query ‘what’s going on?’
Are we to be denied that right?
And those who aren’t happy that we raised the question should stop suggesting that it's all about us not liking Anwar Ibrahim or even tossing in totally irrelevant hypothetical arguments like what if the all-blogs pro-tem committee had met up with Mahathir or Abdullah Badawi.
Instead we need to ask: what’s the purpose, function and organisational objective of the all-blogs? Is it to be a political lobby?
If so, tell us and those who don’t like it can be allowed to get off the train. Don’t deny us this fundamental right of choice.
If not for the title of 'all-blogs', many of us couldn’t give a rat’s posterior if the pro-tem committee had gone to visit Ehud Olmert or Robert Mugabe.