The last few days the MSM has made a big deal of the Yearly Kos convention in Chicago. In case you missed it, the Yearly Kos is a get-together of liberal bloggers who are fans of the Daily Kos, an influencial liberal blog. And this year’s convention has been highlighted by the appearance of the Democratic presidential candidates and a rift between Candidate Clinton and Candidate Obama. (He said she should stop taking lobbyists’ money and she said she wasn’t going to (stop taking lobbyists’ money). Clinton also did some deft pandering telling the audience that she does read blogs. Oh, yeah? We’re calling your bluff. Prove you’re really a blog reader by leaving a comment on this post, Hillary … er, Senator, m’am.)
But never mind that. What really cracks me up is the way the MSM, always in search of a hook that’ll make sense to an audience they assume is brain dead, has decided that conservatives own the talk show message (TV and radio) and liberals own the online message.
As a political moderate I ask, “Who said so?” Further I would suggest the evidence points to a balance of views, especially in the blogosphere … especially in the milblogosphere. Of course, the MSM gives most if not all of the love to liberal outlets like the Daily Kos and Huffington Post, so if all you did was watch TV you’d think the liberals did, in fact, own the web … but they don’t. And I don’t write that because I’m a big Fox News watcher or Dittohead (I’m neither); I write that because it’s true. (I reference the absence of a Hillary Clinton comment beneath this post as evidence of this truth.)
Which is a lovely segue into a question of who owns the notion of truth in media. I just watched the movie “Shattered Glass,” which is about the career of the fabulist Stephen Glass at The New Republic, an organization that has always made a big deal out of their fact checking process. Well, as anyone who’s ever worked in government knows, a process doesn’t guarantee an outcome, and The New Republic proved that again recently with their by-in-large bogus features by fabulist Scott Thomas Beauchamp, private — one each.
Any MSM dismissal of blogs because of their inherent absence of editorial oversight misses the point. Well-read blogs do have an oversight process: the “comments” feature. We prove it daily here at Defense Tech. The staff has learned (the good ol’ fashioned “hard way”) that even the most casual sub-truth or pseudo-falsehood will be savaged by our readership. As the dialectic goes high order, the truth emerges … every time.
And that’s really what freaks the MSM out. Blogs are not an “I talk, you listen” proposition. They’re a discussion … one where readers opinions matter as much as writers to the degree that the roles are often indistinguishable.
Is this a problem? We at DT think not. Flame on, dear friends; flame on.
And here’s hoping that bloggers DO influence the 2008 presidential elections.
– Ward
I too have noticed how the MSM is portraying the web as liberal owned while talk radio as conservative owned. However, as you said, it is obvious that the web is well-balanced, as given by the fact that both conservative and liberal news outlets will often quote blogs nowadays.
The problem is, liberal talk radio has failed. There are probably many good reasons why those programs are constantly going out of business, but as a result, the liberal MSM has treated conservative talk radio as a negative thing. Suddenly, with the success of a few liberal blogs, they are now praising those blogs for the very same reasons that they have been demonizing conservative talk radio.
Now, what I think is going on, is that they are trying to paint a picture of liberal blogs versus conservative talk radio, ignoring the fact that very successful conservative blogs exist and thrive. Not to mention the successful moderate ones.
It is absolutely insane what the media has become. And even more insane that they are legitimizing outlets of the lunatic fringe of both the right and the left.
interesting thread which discusses some of the issue.
link to armchair generalist thread that discusses some of this issue
Link again is above doesn’t work
http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/why-the-militar.html
Very well said on the one-way versus two-way communication difference. The web can only get better because of its inherent BS filter. As someone posted on Yglesias: What if Murdoch has spent a gazillion bucks on buggy-whips?
Different forms of media may have different leanings in general, but only the Internet allows people to make of it what they will. There are still some barriers to entry (computer use knowledge, getting noticed above the noise) but these pale in comparison to the barriers in MSM — and that is also part of what scares the heck out of them. John Doe can put up a free blog and take attention away from an army of writers, editors, and advertisers.
Anyone unhappy with the “political lean” of the Internet (I’m not conceding there is one) should put their feet in and balance it.
Thanks DT for contributing to that.
are you kidding me? I hate to break it to you, but all the Beauchamp stuff has been completely and totally backed up and corroborated. this guy was definitely serving and definitely writing about events he witnessed and took part in.
It’s pretty gross that you would call an American who is serving his nation a liar when he is only revealing the real news (news that has been corroborated by independent sources) that the current illegal junta’s biggest cheerleaders: the MSM (which is so not liberal leaning…not in a million years or we wouldn’t be in this clusterf**k)will never ever tell us
Hey, Ward:
If the readers and writers roles here “are often indistinguishable”, shouldn’t you be paying us to post here?
Where do I send my invoice?
Jason,
Can you point out some of the corroboration of the Beauchamp fiction? Or are you referring to them using one other anonymous source as their verification.
There will be no money, Demophilus. But on your deathbed you will have total consciousness; so you got that going for you, which is nice …
uh-huh.
We know that Beauchump is actually serving.
However not a single one of his stories are validated by even a single one of his unit members. Not one.
Not even the stories he fabricated while he was still in Kuwait.
===
Hey Ghandi — I’m one of those “asshats” over at LGF. Suck it up.
SMALL
ARMS
TODAY,
R
this article features several corroroborations:
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=w070730&s=editorial080207
Yes, they’re anonymous, but they’re real. Do you people really believe that TNR really is gonna put its ass on the line for a guy whose lying and that they’re gonna help cover up his lies by making stuff up? Of course now that this has turned into such a ridiculous (and manufactured) tempest in a teapot, what soldier is gonna come out and attach his name to something when he’s obviously gonna have to deal with the heavy duty bullshit that will come streaming down the chain of command on his ass?
Here’s a piece by Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan with links showing Hewitt couldn’t find any innacuracies:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/the-scott-thoma.html
This is such a political witch hunt. Beauchamp has been filing stories from Iraq for a while. As long as they agree with his stories’ politics, publications like the Weekly Standard were cheerleaders for this guy. As soon as the truth showed something different, they attacked him. Vilely.
Look, in war there are atrocities. This guy isn’t writing about anything that comes close to being an atrocity. Why all the attack? Because this administration gave 200,000 AK47’s to insurgents that were paid for with American tax dollars and they’d rather focus attention on one soldier who can’t really defend himself (a la Abu Ghraib etc) rather than on the disgusting and easily prevented failures that seem to pop up almost daily and military decisions being made by “men” who make the maginot line creators look like Napolean, Caesar and Rommel combined.…
“Yes, they’re anonymous, but they’re real. Do you people really believe that TNR really is gonna put its ass on the line for a guy whose lying and that they’re gonna help cover up his lies by making stuff up? Of course now that this has turned into such a ridiculous (and manufactured) tempest in a teapot, what soldier is gonna come out and attach his name to something when he’s obviously gonna have to deal with the heavy duty bullshit that will come streaming down the chain of command on his ass?“
Yeah-TNR will put his ass on the line for a lier-they’ve done it before.
“This is such a political witch hunt. Beauchamp has been filing stories from Iraq for a while. As long as they agree with his stories’ politics, publications like the Weekly Standard were cheerleaders for this guy. As soon as the truth showed something different, they attacked him. Vilely.“
Dude, check out the news now-he lied. He’s recanted
A finer point to Max’s input:
“THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed ‘Shock Troops’ article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous ‘Baghdad Diarist’ columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were
exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only ‘a smidgen of truth,’ in the words of our source.
Clearly, on this one, I had it totally wrong. He lied. I believed him. I was wrong. TNR was wrong (though I still believe they believed him as I did and didn’t knowingly lie, just as I don’t think they knew glass was lying at the time and addressed it when it came out).
“Clearly, on this one, I had it totally wrong. He lied. I believed him. I was wrong. TNR was wrong (though I still believe they believed him as I did and didn’t knowingly lie, just as I don’t think they knew glass was lying at the time and addressed it when it came out).
Posted by: Jason at August 7, 2007 07:28 PM“
TNR knew he was untruthful-almost from the get go-they wrote that noone had proven Beauchamp wrong, even as veterans lined up to point out some of his acts were physically impossible.
I like how you jumped in to make counter accustations-beased on falsehoods to help them out!
Jason admitted he was wrong, Max. Let’s give him credit for that.