In remarks which struck terror into my paranoid, self-indulgent, nonsensical, and dangerous heart, the Archbishop of Canterbury has savaged the blogosphere:

THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has criticised the new web-based media for “paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry”. He described the atmosphere on the world wide web as a free-for-all that was “close to that of unpoliced conversation”.

In a lecture to media professionals, politicians and church leaders at Lambeth Palace in London last night, Dr Williams wondered whether a balance could be struck between the professionalism of the classical media and the relative disorder of online communication.

First of all, I haven't read the whole speech, so I don't know whether it's being reported in the proper context. Was Dr. Williams saying that all bloggers are engaged in "paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry"? Or just some? On its face, his comment seems to be a generalization about the blogosphere versus the old maintream media, and I'm quite baffled over what he might mean by the term "unpoliced conversation" -- an ill-defined thing he appears to be very much against.

Is he advocating the policing of conversations? Or is he simply against conversations? By it's very nature, traditional media tends not to be a conversation (in the sense of dialogue) at all, but a monologue, limited only by editorial control and/or the economic success of the venue. The only policing it experiences is business failure, or (I suppose) letters to the editor. While it can be argued that the blogosphere tends to "police" the old media by offering criticism or corrections, there is absolutely no obligation of the sort we normally associate with the word "police." The beauty of the American system lies in the fact whether there is a new media style conversation or an old media style monologue, legal policing of any sort is constitutionally off limits.

So yes, Dr. Williams, it is unpoliced conversation. And unpoliced conversation is a good thing. (You want to sell policing, there are plenty of governments which are buying.)

What seems inexplicably absent from Dr. Williams' analysis is the concept of self policing, or policing at the behest of suggestions by others (often taking the form of correcting) which occurs quite frequently in the blogosphere. In this sense, the new media is more responsive to policing than the old, as even the most cursory review of the blogosphere would make plain. (In the old days, the only recourse was to "write a letter to the editor" -- in stark contrast to today's "start a blog, write your own editorial, and prepare for relentless criticism.") This is hardly a new observation, and surely Dr. Williams has to be aware that there is constant, relentless, yet legally unenforceable policing going on. (Why, I'd be willing to bet that he has a staff of some sort reviewing blogospheric reactions to his very remarks about policing!)

So, I'm a little concerned about these remarks. While Dr. Williams is hardly an Iranian theocrat, as the Archbishop of Canterbury his words have a certain influence -- arguably beyond even remarks which might be made by Iranian mullahs. And if an Iranian mullah complained about the blogosphere being "unpoliced," well, we'd all know what he meant.

But surely Dr. Williams is not calling for Internet police.

Well, is he?

At this point I'm so beset with paranoid fantasy I honestly don't know.

(I should probably stick with self-indulgent nonsense.)

UPDATE (06/19/05): Stephen Green is horrified by unpoliced coversation:

"Unpoliced conversation." Can you in your wildest dreams imagine such a thing? Talking, actually talking with another human being or two, without some legal or moral authority present to keep things, ah, kosher?

Unpoliced conversations are another sign of the moral decay of our times.