 |
Who has more credibility as a comic superhero? Superman or Batman? Superman coz he does not wear a mask? Hey, hello? Clark Kent IS the mask. All that episodes of Smallville (sidetrack eins, Lana Lang is a hottie) taught me that. But you know what, both are credible superheros in the DCverse, pointy-eared mask or not, like it or not.
Next. Who has more credibility as a superhero taking down the bad guys for the supposedly counter-(adult)culture MTV generation consumers? Sissy Superman with the girly hair curl on his forehead, goody image, all smiley, polite and blue skinsuit with red undies worn outside? OMG. Barf. Old School. I wish sometimes Lex Luthor, who is the most real and likeable dude in Smallville BTW IMO, would kryptonite him realllll good. Besides, sorry all, gimme ugly anti-hero angsty "superheros" Spawn or Hellboy anytime coz lex talionis rocks in anti-hero superhero comics (Marilyn Manson's classic The Beautiful People thumping in the background). What? Did I hear you say that it is sooooooo Columbine High School-ish? Come on! Sit back and chill! (while I turn up the volume of The Beautiful People even more) Again, you know, just coz Spawn and Hellboy are not pretty, that does not mean they can't be some sort of comic superhero. Why should DC and Marvel dictate for consumers what and how a superhero should look like and behave? Superman or Spawn, both are also credible as superheros as they take care of the baddies, the core duty of the comic superhero.
Thanks for still hanging out with me so far. So where am I going with this? Credibility of bloggers Look! The Bat Signal!.
Nah, I am not saying bloggers are comic superhero types. I wish! LOL I'm not loaded on homemade hash brown. But it is a nifty metaphor for the topic of what makes a blogger credible in the eyes of the readers. Quick to the Batcave!
Anonymity and/or the use psuedonyms in the web makes us less credible in our views? Somehow along the way, blogger anonymity in the web became synonymous with blogger lying and spouting inaccurate views in the web. Impressions and stereotypes of who can write good stuff for others to read didn't seem to have changed much since the time when Mary Ann Evans took up a nom de plume, or nick in web lingo, George Eliot, so that she could sell her books to Victorian readers. Shouldn't we judge whether a blogger is credible or not based on the content of his or her postings? Whether they make sense, whether they raise a good point regardless if it is controversial, whether the person tried to be accurate and then graciously apologise and edit material if the comments made are inaccurate? So we are not allowed to make anonymous postings in the web if we want to be credible is the general vibe? Or maybe anonymous bloggers should register ourselves with the govt before they can stomp around in the web...ahem, shades of Marvel's Civil War series and the Super Human Registration Act raised by Bernard and which was also mentioned in a Straits Times review recently (but perhaps in a different context, I can't remember and give proper credit, sorry to the dude who wrote that cool feature). Anyway, I'm with Captain America!
Then the trickier belief creeping around about pretty cherry on top please presentation of ideas and views to ensure a blogger's credibility. Language is a vehicle to convey ideas in a way. It's more than that but let's keep it simple, like story arcs in superhero comics. Somehow along the way, bloggers writing in non-Standard English with choices of expression that are unprintable in newspapers, children's books, etc are dissed as not credible coz of their no-Standard English style and presentation of their ideas and views. Bummer! Again, shouldn't we judge whether a blogger is credible or not based on the content of his or her postings? Whether they make sense, whether they raise a good point regardless if it is controversial, whether the person tried to be accurate and then graciously apologise and edit material if the comments made are inaccurate? Is a blogger's socially unreadable and ungrammatical language automatically synonymous with views that are not credible? Surely not as the answer is context-driven.
So the masked Dark Knight is not a credible superhero simply coz he is masked? So Spawn or Hellboy are not credible superheros in the sense of kicking baddies' butts simply coz they are ugly dudes from hell and their appearance is terrifying rather than goody boring old school superhero image? Remember that urban legend of Nestle staff wearing white coats to promote and sell formula milk in Africa? White coats alone don't transform guys wearing it into a credible doctors or scientists.
The web is ours to play, re-imagine and re-draw. Let's reject the mould of who, what or when a written idea or view is deemed credible in our school or work environment, and go back to the Prime Directive-ish mood in judging credibility in the web. Anonymity and relatively unconventional language style in commenting on social and political issues per se do not define whether a blogger is credible or not. It is all about the details in the ideas conveyed.
