What's with this new media meme of whining about librul blogs?

[Van Cruncheon]

I can't read a Lamont/Liebermann story in ANY outlet without a bunch of pissing and moaning about the "radical left" and their use of "blogistan" to rain terror down on our brave folks at the Times/Post et al.

How come we never see stories on conservative blogs -- which in the case of Instapundit, Powerline, LGF, and Free Republic, have readership greater to or equal than a Kos or Atrios? Even funnier, Kos and Atrios are usually links plus minimal commentary that generally expose government/media hypocrisy or grovel for money -- whereas Powerline and Instapundit are packed with all SORTS of crazy articles that usually boil down to race-baiting, self-loathing excuses for increased federal surveillance powers, or cheerleading for violent reactionary patriotism. This is the sort of crazy blog shit to freak out about, rather than trolling the comment bucket at Kos for examples of alleged anti-Semitism (and still getting it wrong).

So WHAT THE FUCK. PhoenixDark is forbidden to post in this thread unless he brings proof rather than his fucked up "feelings" to the table.

[ToxicAdam]

1) Coin a word-phrase to lump your enemy into one group
2) Demonize the phrase
3) Profit


See: Liberal, Flip-flopper, FOB, Moderate

[Van Cruncheon]

Well, I *get* the Rove set and the rank-and-file Republicans doing it -- hell, I'm willing to call a freeper a "jackboot nazi" every chance I get -- but traditional media outlets? Are they worried that them thar intarwebs might provide some of the basic ombudsmanship they've been so obviously lacking these days?

[ToxicAdam]

I think that is wishful thinking on the blog-communities part. There might be some resentment from the guy working for a news service for 20 years, seeing these upstarts make more waves in 3 years than they have in their entire professional careers. That might be a legitimate angle, but not a collective effort by this "media" conglomerate that everyone fears.

They are a legitimate force in politics ... but they haven't really done anything +big+ aside from win Dean some national recognition in 04 and win a measly primary in an anti-incumbent year.

I don't think they have reached the level of a DLC or a Ralph Reeder (Christian Coalition), where they can change a political landscape. The problem is that there really isn't a collective head for these internet activists. Once some of them acheive some real power, you will see them splinter off into factions, minimizing their voices even more.

[Van Cruncheon]

I don't think the libby blogs are as big an influence as they'd like to think, either. The Lamont victory certainly isn't worth the champagne -- Liebermann's independent run will just hand victory to the Republican opponent in the seat race. Sure, unseating one of the biggest lameduck incumbents in the party is nice, but it's obviously gonna be a net loss for the party -- especially in a traditionally blue state. D'oh! WAY TO WIN, INTARNET.

I don't see any "media conglomerate" -- I just see a lot of shitty journalists who don't like being called out as hypocritical or lazy fucks in the public forum, so if they have the chance to spit a little bile in the op-ed pages or on TV screens, they will, and frankly it's tiresome. How about they avoid obvious self-contradictions when reporting the news, and actually take White House spin to task?

[Flannel Boy]

Deleted by user

[APF]

How much money do Conservative blogs really generate, how much influence do they really have?  The righty bloggers seem content to be an alternative news source, and little else really; the only stories I tend to see on them is when they successfully uncover Press scandals (Rathergate, the recent wire photo scandal, etc).  In contrast, the Liberal blogosphere really has exploded over the last few years, esp in terms of meetups and fundraising.

[Phoenix Dark]

The meme seems to be that liberal blogs are influential and are using this influence to steer the Democratic Party to the left. This meme seems to be spreading from liberal members of the media and usual discussed in connection to the 2008 race. I think they like to say 'liberal blogsphere' a lot. Maybe when the Republican race starts heating up you'll hear a similar theme. Often in the past the media has ran stories on how AM radio was influencing the conservative electorate.

Also many of the popular blogs seem to simply have links with minimal comment, not just the left-leaning ones, but the comment sections are very lively (see distinguished mentally-challenged).

I would agree. The internet is really changing poltics as we know it, and the left is using it far better than the right imho. But, I also cannot help but feel that this movement is slowly moving the party further left. The 911 Inside Job movement is gaining a lot of steam, the anti DLC movement has been in effect for awhile now, etc. The left doesn't seem to understand that politics, in many ways, is still a game. And running the John Kerrys/DuCockis/etc of the world is still not a good idea. Republican-lite is bad, I would agree. But wacko-lite is just as bad.

[APF]

Hehehe... "cock."

[Van Cruncheon]

what defines a "wacko" versus a "Republican-Lite" for you, PD?

Kerry isn't even a fucking liberal by any standard. He's about as painfully mainstream Democrat as you can get.

[Diablos]

The Republicans didn't paint him as being that, and thus, a lot of Americans think Kerry is as liberal as they come.

Anyway, yeah, all of this bullshit about the "radical left" and the opportunities they are giving Republicans because a PRO WAR DEMOCRAT IN ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL STATES IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY lost pisses me off.

I'm not sure what's worse: The fact that Republicans constantly pull this shit, or the fact that the public continues to eat it up. Maybe if our society would get a fucking clue, we wouldn't have to get mad at the lot of crazy neocons shouting this off because they wouldn't even have a voice.

[Mandark]

Well, lefty blogs say lots of mean things about the newsmedia, so of course they're going to rally around the fraternity.

The biggest factor is probably people mistaking a strident tone for radical politics.  Everyone keeps saying that the base is going farther left, that the Kossacks are pushing the party away from the center, etc.  But who can list all the radical planks of the bloggy agenda?  The only policies that would really represent a significant change are a single-payer healthcare system and gay marriage.

For the most part, the activist base just wants the Democratic Party to push back harder against the GOP agenda.  Social Security, the bankruptcy rules, the estate tax, etc.  Howard Dean was meant to be the leftist candidate, but it was because of his aggressive rhetoric, not his policies.

The Kos wing of the party is not radical, just oppositional.  They support "moderate" candidates in Red States as a matter of tactics.



Phoenix Dark:  What exactly are the main achievements of the 9-11 Inside Job movement at this point?  What politicians court the movement?  What organizations in this movement even try to affect elections?  How is it even close to being equivalent to an anti-DLC movement?

What do you have, other than "I met these guys on the internet who said..." to make you believe this?


edit: Shut up, Diablos.  You're not allowed to pull the "I'm so angry cause the public is so much dumber than me" bit.  You're stupid.  You read your books; you're still stupid.

[Diablos]

edit: Shut up, Diablos.  You're not allowed to pull the "I'm so angry cause the public is so much dumber than me" bit.  You're stupid.  You read your books; you're still stupid.

 

I didn't "pull" anything. It's very true that if people didn't buy into the rambling of neocons, they simply wouldn't have a voice.
It makes no sense to use Liberman's loss as an example of the party going too far to the left. They still write about it, and people still believe it, sadly.

Insulting me like this is getting really old, Mandark. What's with you?

Diablos: THE SKY IS BLUE!
Mandark: SHUT UP DIABLOS, YOU'RE STUPID!

 

[Van Cruncheon]

I think what grates on me most are the pseudo-intellectual self-titled "liberals" that try to make their half-baked politics more palatable by attempting to poorly disassociate themselves from mainstream liberal observation and analysis, much as PhoenixDark is trying to do. Apparently they think this somehow puts them closer to the cusp of credence, which is a sort of disingenuity that likewise typefies the average mainstream journalist. Saying "well, BOTH sides are a little bit right" is a maxim of the ill-informed and hardly a mantra of wisdom -- sometimes, one side *is* completely correct and the other utterly wrong. The conciliatory set should do their homework or just shut the fuck up -- lazy, mealy-mouthed pandering to both sides doesn't fix problems.


These are the folks that lend credence to  conservative hysteria over the "radical left" by pretending that most libby blogs and outlets are *the* voice of the post-Vietnam patchouli-stinkin' Berkeley PC-core set rather than the middle-to-upper class set of working folks looking for universal health care, freedom from religion, expanded civil rights for gay folk, and an end to the tax privileges enjoyed by the stupidly wealthy. Outside of principled opposition to the war -- something supported by the largest majority of Americans -- the above values are what typefy most recognized liberal bloggers across the board.

The 9/11 was an Inside Job set are a mix of far-lefties, far-righties, and nutbar libertarians -- and at the place they reside in the political spectrum, they're all the same color. The difference between the Opa-Ages' Hans and a third-rate Noam Chomsky at Democratic Underground is completely lost on me.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

*claps loudly*

[Van Cruncheon]

NOBODY bought into the pandering of the neocons, Diablos; the neocons were placed in various functionary roles after TRADITIONAL Bible Belt values types got elected, ala George Bush. Thanks to the good folks at PNAC and the various affiliated think tanks, there's was a steady supply of fresh-faced overprivileged post-collegiate white kids (and their academically-embittered masters) looking for emplyment as middle- and upper-tier functionaries in the Bush administration. THAT'S why we have neocon policy -- America is more worried about fegs humping with federal sanction or terrorists nuking their midwest Wal-Mart than they are about nation-building in camel country.

I can point to very few elected folks in Congress that speak neocon values, although they'll mouth the arguments their think tanks provide. To a man, most are old-guard conservatives that built their electoral legacies on the culture wars or regional pork.

Do you even know what a neo-con is? Their leaders are former liberals from the 60s and 70s turned to capitalist paranoiacs.

[Diablos]

NOBODY bought into the pandering of the neocons, Diablos; the neocons were placed in various functionary roles after traditional archconservative Bible Belt values types got elected, ala George Bush. Thanks to the good folks at PNAC and the various affiliated think tanks, there's was a steady supply of fresh-faced overprivileged post-collegiate white kids (and their academically-embittered masters) looking for employment as middle- and upper-tier functionaries in the Bush administration. THAT'S why we have neocon policy -- America is more worried about fegs humping with federal sanction or terrorists nuking their midwest Wal-Mart than they are about nation-building in camel country.

I agree. What I'm also trying to say is, the things you and I are so disgusted with that are written so very often by people who are neocons are now more accessible. Because, as you said, neocons themselves have brought their policies into the mainstream. Nobody bought into the pandering of neocons initially, perhaps -- but now they're writing articles about what they think the Democrats are doing wrong and how it can help Republicans. Someone who's not that political, trying to follow the issues and sitting on the fence might be persuaded to think that good points are being made. That's a problem in itself.

When I say people are "buying into" the ramblings of people like this, I mean right now. It's very clear that they were given a voice in the first place because of people like George W. Bush, but that doesn't mean that other people have to continue to pay attention to what they're saying. The fact that these people and many of their opinions are now interjected into the mainstream is scary.

[APF]

NOBODY bought into the pandering of the neocons

What about the John Murthas who bought into the idea that the war would be a cakewalk, or the John Kerrys who bought into the idea that Saddam's Iraq was a threat that needed to be dealt with immediately by military force if the UN didn't intervene, or the New Republics who bought into the ideological passion and moral necessity of transforming Iraq?

[brawndolicious]

When did bloggers ever claim to be smart?

[Van Cruncheon]

Point for APF. I forgot about The New Republic in particular, but they're a regular breeding ground for neocon apologism, albeit flavored with a more liberal-friendly slant. Then again, they're the sort of pseudo-intellectual faux-liberal I was complaining about above. (I subscribe to them, unfortunately, although mostly for their literary and cultural reviews these days.)

[The Fake Shemp]

The real mind bender is how the media demonizes these blogs since they have so much power for what is basically an online soapbox, when it was never the Internet popularity that made them a mainstream Talking Point, but rather the media interest around them.  I really don't think your average Joe reads DailyKos (or reads it at all) and bases his political leanings on that.

[Flannel Boy]

Deleted by user

[APF]

When did bloggers ever claim to be smart?

Atrios is very smart, he calls people wankers and is ANGRY!!!  I wrote a blog about how smart he is, it's on my blog The Smart Blogger's Blog*



[ * for smart people ]

[The Fake Shemp]

I have a blog too, it's called The Blog for People Who Hate Blogs and it's nothing but pictures of naked women and George Bush giving them thumbs up or thumbs down.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

I have a blog too, it's called The Blog for People Who Hate Blogs and it's nothing but pictures of naked women and George Bush giving them thumbs up or thumbs down.

LINK? 

[Diablos]

I have a blog too, it's called The Blog for People Who Hate Blogs and it's nothing but pictures of naked women and George Bush giving them thumbs up or thumbs down.

Let's make it!

[Flannel Boy]

I have a blog too, it's called The Blog for People Who Hate Blogs and it's nothing but pictures of naked women and George Bush giving them thumbs up or thumbs down.

Let's make it!

Best Blog ever!

[Lonestar]

I cancelled my subscrition to the NEW REPUBLIC a few weeks ago.  Told them as long as that idiot-married-into-money jackass Peretz still runs the show and appears on fundie outlets such as Hugh Hewitt's and pronounces that he'd rather NOT have a Democratic house or senate then I wouldn't be the last subscriber to keep them afloat. 

[Van Cruncheon]

American Prospect and Harper's for the win!

[Phoenix Dark]

Mandark: I already explained my position last time, and you weren't paying attention.

I have never stated that Democrats are buying into this junk. My concern lies strictly with the far left movement the younger base seems to be making. The internet is a powerful tool in politics, one which has been dominated by the left. It's more than a little trend. And when I look at this movement, I see a group of people who are quickly moving to the left and leaving common sense at the door.

Do I want to see Hillary Clinton/Joe Biden/etc run in 08? Hell no. But I certainly don't want to see someone like Fiengold run either

[Mandark]

Rule of thumb:  When someone says "I already explained that," they're lying.

Making assertions about "the base" based on some dude in a Che shirt isn't going to get you anywhere.  Either produce something to back up what you're saying, or shut up and rethink your position.  Name the most prominent 9/11 Inside Job people/publications/institutions you can.  So far you've name-dropped Kerry, Dean, and Feingold, but I doubt those guys fit.

Drinky: It's not just a case of being elected on one set of policies so you can enact another.  The Iraq war was a pretty popular idea with GOP voters; they like seeing government authority being used to punish people, both in domestic and foreign policy.  Likewise, the (essentially racist) idea of a big, monolithic Muslim enemy caught on, though I don't know if you'd file that under neocon memes or dominionist paranoia.

Diablos: Who, specifically, are the neocons writing these articles on domestic Democratic strategy?  I'll spot you William Kristol.

[Diablos]

Diablos: Who, specifically, are the neocons writing these articles on domestic Democratic strategy?  I'll spot you William Kristol.

I'm talking about the neocon mentality as a whole and how it influences public opinion, rather than pointing out a couple individual neoconservative journalists like Kristol. Neocons at the federal level brought their views into play. Now anyone can go on a blog and glorify their agenda. Skim through the lot of conservative blogs and you'll spot a lot of people taking on the neocon position. Sure, it might be someone that no one really knows or cares about, but the media is paying attention to these things regardless; that is, what's being said. That point or quote that they zoom in on and highlight when CNN is doing analysis of blogs. Who actually said it often takes a backseat. For example, Liberman loses, maybe some journalist says something about it being an opportunity for Republicans in the fall,  bloggers respond and jump on the bandwagon, generating some extra buzz. The next thing you know, CNN feels inclined to focus on it when they want to really know how a lot of conservative individuals are feeling. Someone watching that who just wants to get an idea of what to make of all of this information may consider these types of opinions as valuable ones, when it's just a bunch of neocons blogging their exaggeration of what Liberman's loss is really going to do to the Democrats.

Now if you want to talk about neocon (or neocon inspired) opinion on an individual basis, just watch Fox News for an hour or something. Or torture yourself by reading through a lot of Weekly Standard articles.

[Lonestar]

Diablos, the people watching CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC 24/7 dissecting their coverage are overwhelmingly 1.) old and 2.) politically astute anyway.  Just because one of the aforementioned cable news shows repeats what Bill Kristol sez matters nothing to the general public who are watching.  These people already have a general idea of who/what/why and aren't affected by what some host says, or quotes.  What it is doing, though, is shaping the chattering, insider club class that rules DC. And if not, then representing what the "kool kids" are thinking.

You have a side that simply LOATHES the media and a side that just wants the media to do their job and to stop the business of glorifying opinions.  See: Fairness Doctrine.