The Media Still Does Not Get It
Thomas showed me this piece by Michael Crowley this morning. These people in the media still do not understand bloggers. Crowley proves it in this piece.
When the liberal activist Matt Stoller was running a blog for the Democrat John Corzine's 2005 campaign for governor, he saw the power of the conservative blogosphere firsthand. Shortly before the election, a conservative Web site claimed that politically damaging information about Corzine was about to surface in the media. It didn't. But New Jersey talk-radio shock jocks quoted the online speculation, inflicting public-relations damage on Corzine anyway. To Stoller, it was proof of how conservatives have mastered the art of using blogs as a deadly campaign weapon.
That is true, to a point. Bloggers can be very effective on their sites for campaign issues and candidates. But bloggers are a bit more than just campaign tools. We go after the stories the media does not want to address, such as the recent incident in China, or Eason Jordan's slanderous comments about our troops. Bloggers gained their prominence in the Rathergate debacle. In short, bloggers not only handle news the media opts out of, but we act as ombudsmen over the media. They decided that they need no fact-checkers, yet they keep getting caught with their pants down by us "pajama"-clad keyboard cowboys.
That might sound counterintuitive. After all, the Howard Dean campaign showed the power of the liberal blogosphere. And the liberal-activist Web site DailyKos counts hundreds of thousands of visitors each day. But Democrats say there's a key difference between liberals and conservatives online. Liberals use the Web to air ideas and vent grievances with one another, often ripping into Democratic leaders. (Hillary Clinton, for instance, is routinely vilified on liberal Web sites for supporting the Iraq war.) Conservatives, by contrast, skillfully use the Web to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates. They are generally less interested in examining every side of every issue and more focused on eliciting strong emotional responses from their supporters.
The Dean campaign showed the power of the liberal blogosphere? When did that happen, and where was I. Seriously, if the liberal bloggers had been truly that effective, it would stand to reason that they could have accomplished three major things in the last election.
1) John Kerry (or Howard Dean, for that matter) would have become president.
2) They could have refuted the charges against Kerry regarding his military service.
3) They would have defended his Senate record against those questioning it.
None of the above occurred. They could not catch and maintain the wave. The conservative blogs beat the ever-living hell out of John Kerry. When the election was over Kerry looked like he had gone ten rounds with Muhammed Ali. DailyKos is an extreme liberal website where the participants on the site regularly engage in hate-filled, spiteful, vitriolic attacks against conservatives. Michelle Malkin has cited several moonbat, fringe posts from commenters that go beyond the pale. Crowley claims that the liberal sites use their bandwidths to voice ideas and vent grievances. Well, the venting part is right on the money. Ideas, however, are not what is present on many of these sites, including DailyKos.
But what really makes conservatives effective is their pre-existing media infrastructure, composed of local and national talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, the Fox News Channel and sensationalist say-anything outlets like the Drudge Report - all of which are quick to pass on the latest tidbit from the blogosphere. "One blogger on the Republican side can have a real impact on a race because he can just plug right into the right-wing infrastructure that the Republicans have built," Stoller says.
If we are simply "plugging in" then where is our paycheck for a job well done? We are not part of the Republican establishment. If anything, bloggers operate outside of an establishment. And I have to question Mr. Crowley's assertions regarding those he listed. Mr. Limbaugh has only been acknowledging blogs for a short time. The same with FOX News. As Michelle Malkin points out today on her site, Drudge dislikes bloggers. He links to them once in a blue moon, and when asked about them on his radio show, he distances himself from them, or makes fun of the bloggers. As a matter of fact, none of these outlets are passing on "tidbits" from the blogosphere unless it is something important, such as Rathergate. The people and organizations he lists are independent. They are not even plugged into the Republican machine.
And as if that were not enough, Editor & Publisher decided to write a review of this piece of garbage.
NEW YORK In an argument sure to be challenged in certain sectors of the blogosphere, a story in The New York Times magazine coming up this Sunday declares that conservative blogs continue to best liberal blogs in political and electoral influence. The title of the piece by Michael Crowley in the magazine’s 5th Annual Year in Ideas cover package says it all: “Conservative Blogs Are More Effective.”
We might be better at influencing people for a whole host of reasons. Among them are the ability to make sound, reasoned arguments based on fact that are persuasive. Most conservative blogs that Thomas, Sabrina, and I read also have a level of decorum to them, and we carry that same decorum on our site. No foul language. No personal attacks. The liberal side cannot admit this. Disagree? Check out DailyKos or Atrios, and I am sure you will change your mind.
Crowley, a New Republic writer, claims that with the 2006 elections approaching, Democrats are now “trying to use blogs more strategically.” But he concludes by embracing the view of Matt Stoller, an activist who ran a blog for Sen. Jon Corzine during his 2005 race for governor of New Jersey, who believes that next year conservative bloggers “will certain have an upper hand.” Crowley adds: “Again.”
Before they can use them strategically, the party and activists have to be on the same page. If you look at Thomas' post from this morning, you will see him citing the Washington Times piece about the Democrats being divided over the Iraq Phase of the war. Howard Dean was supposed to have re-introduced the Democrat platform, and he cannot even agree with his own party over one of the key issues that killed their party the last time around, which was national security. The liberal side of the blogosphere can only use talking points so long. Eventually, they have to have something new, and as it stands, they are not the party of new ideas or progression.
He had opened his piece citing a recent example in New Jersey where talk-radio picked up on personal charges against Corzine airing on conservative blogs, which then caused “damage” to the campaign. “To Stoller, it was proof of how conservatives have mastered the art of using blogs as a deadly campaign weapon,” Crowley writes. Yet Corzine won the election easily anyway.
E & P fails to note that what Crowley wrote, which was that those charges never surfaced. Without a charge, no damage can be done. Remember: In politics the charge itself might be more damaging than whether or not it is true. Corzine had no charge leveled against him, so this point by E & P is moot.
In fact, Crowley admits that his argument for conservative blog supremacy may seem “counterintuitive,” noting the Howard Dean phenomenon in early 2004 and heavy Web traffic numbers for liberal blogs such as DailyKos. (He does not mention that studies of online traffic show that, overall, there are more highly-popular liberal blogs than conservative ones.) But he explains that “Democrats say there’s a key difference between liberals and conservatives online. Liberals use the Web to air ideas and vent grievances with one another, often ripping into Democratic leaders….Conservatives, by contrast, skillfully use the Web to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates."
Again, true to a point. We have elections every two years--Mid-terms and presidential. So, we are not constantly on a war-footing when it comes to candidates. The battle from the conservative side is mounted against the MSM and their continuing failure to deliver relevant, real news to America and the world. We pick up the slack. Take a look at sites like InstaPundit, Little Green Footballs, and PowerLine News. These sites pick up on tons of stories that never make it to the mainstream outlets. The majority of these stories are important. Case in point: Giuliani Sgrena. She is the Italian reporter that was involved in a check-point incident in Iraq.
She had been kidnapped by terrorists, and Italy agreed to pay a ransom. They sent Nicola Calipari, an intelligence agent, to Iraq to retrieve her. He told no one other than the senior ranking Italian officer. Upon her release, they were heading towards Baghdad Airport. And they did the stupidest thing by attempting to run the checkpoint. Our troops responded accordingly. She still maintains that it was no accident; the soldiers were trying to kill her and Calipari. Not ONE mention of this story surfaced on the networks, and only blurbs about it appeared in papers. The starboard side of the blogosphere was all over it. I ought to know because I was one of them on top of the story.
Crowley then comments that what really makes the conservative blogs allegedly more effective is the infrastructure provided by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and others--"all of which are quick to pass on the latest tidbit from the blogosphere."
The editors of E & P are about as bright as Crowley. That is not very bright folks. These people do not get us. We don not do this to be "influential," per se. We do what we do because we like to do, it is easy, and it keeps people informed. Hugh Hewitt appropriately pointed out in his book "BLOG" that bloggers are the next step in reporting and marketing. We are influential whether you are a heavyweight like Hewitt, Malkin, Simon, Johnson, or Reynolds, or if you are small fish like us. We each have our gifts and we each have our niche. That will never change. Nor will the media's foolishness regarding bloggers.
The Bunny ;)
Thomas showed me this piece by Michael Crowley this morning. These people in the media still do not understand bloggers. Crowley proves it in this piece.
When the liberal activist Matt Stoller was running a blog for the Democrat John Corzine's 2005 campaign for governor, he saw the power of the conservative blogosphere firsthand. Shortly before the election, a conservative Web site claimed that politically damaging information about Corzine was about to surface in the media. It didn't. But New Jersey talk-radio shock jocks quoted the online speculation, inflicting public-relations damage on Corzine anyway. To Stoller, it was proof of how conservatives have mastered the art of using blogs as a deadly campaign weapon.
That is true, to a point. Bloggers can be very effective on their sites for campaign issues and candidates. But bloggers are a bit more than just campaign tools. We go after the stories the media does not want to address, such as the recent incident in China, or Eason Jordan's slanderous comments about our troops. Bloggers gained their prominence in the Rathergate debacle. In short, bloggers not only handle news the media opts out of, but we act as ombudsmen over the media. They decided that they need no fact-checkers, yet they keep getting caught with their pants down by us "pajama"-clad keyboard cowboys.
That might sound counterintuitive. After all, the Howard Dean campaign showed the power of the liberal blogosphere. And the liberal-activist Web site DailyKos counts hundreds of thousands of visitors each day. But Democrats say there's a key difference between liberals and conservatives online. Liberals use the Web to air ideas and vent grievances with one another, often ripping into Democratic leaders. (Hillary Clinton, for instance, is routinely vilified on liberal Web sites for supporting the Iraq war.) Conservatives, by contrast, skillfully use the Web to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates. They are generally less interested in examining every side of every issue and more focused on eliciting strong emotional responses from their supporters.
The Dean campaign showed the power of the liberal blogosphere? When did that happen, and where was I. Seriously, if the liberal bloggers had been truly that effective, it would stand to reason that they could have accomplished three major things in the last election.
1) John Kerry (or Howard Dean, for that matter) would have become president.
2) They could have refuted the charges against Kerry regarding his military service.
3) They would have defended his Senate record against those questioning it.
None of the above occurred. They could not catch and maintain the wave. The conservative blogs beat the ever-living hell out of John Kerry. When the election was over Kerry looked like he had gone ten rounds with Muhammed Ali. DailyKos is an extreme liberal website where the participants on the site regularly engage in hate-filled, spiteful, vitriolic attacks against conservatives. Michelle Malkin has cited several moonbat, fringe posts from commenters that go beyond the pale. Crowley claims that the liberal sites use their bandwidths to voice ideas and vent grievances. Well, the venting part is right on the money. Ideas, however, are not what is present on many of these sites, including DailyKos.
But what really makes conservatives effective is their pre-existing media infrastructure, composed of local and national talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, the Fox News Channel and sensationalist say-anything outlets like the Drudge Report - all of which are quick to pass on the latest tidbit from the blogosphere. "One blogger on the Republican side can have a real impact on a race because he can just plug right into the right-wing infrastructure that the Republicans have built," Stoller says.
If we are simply "plugging in" then where is our paycheck for a job well done? We are not part of the Republican establishment. If anything, bloggers operate outside of an establishment. And I have to question Mr. Crowley's assertions regarding those he listed. Mr. Limbaugh has only been acknowledging blogs for a short time. The same with FOX News. As Michelle Malkin points out today on her site, Drudge dislikes bloggers. He links to them once in a blue moon, and when asked about them on his radio show, he distances himself from them, or makes fun of the bloggers. As a matter of fact, none of these outlets are passing on "tidbits" from the blogosphere unless it is something important, such as Rathergate. The people and organizations he lists are independent. They are not even plugged into the Republican machine.
And as if that were not enough, Editor & Publisher decided to write a review of this piece of garbage.
NEW YORK In an argument sure to be challenged in certain sectors of the blogosphere, a story in The New York Times magazine coming up this Sunday declares that conservative blogs continue to best liberal blogs in political and electoral influence. The title of the piece by Michael Crowley in the magazine’s 5th Annual Year in Ideas cover package says it all: “Conservative Blogs Are More Effective.”
We might be better at influencing people for a whole host of reasons. Among them are the ability to make sound, reasoned arguments based on fact that are persuasive. Most conservative blogs that Thomas, Sabrina, and I read also have a level of decorum to them, and we carry that same decorum on our site. No foul language. No personal attacks. The liberal side cannot admit this. Disagree? Check out DailyKos or Atrios, and I am sure you will change your mind.
Crowley, a New Republic writer, claims that with the 2006 elections approaching, Democrats are now “trying to use blogs more strategically.” But he concludes by embracing the view of Matt Stoller, an activist who ran a blog for Sen. Jon Corzine during his 2005 race for governor of New Jersey, who believes that next year conservative bloggers “will certain have an upper hand.” Crowley adds: “Again.”
Before they can use them strategically, the party and activists have to be on the same page. If you look at Thomas' post from this morning, you will see him citing the Washington Times piece about the Democrats being divided over the Iraq Phase of the war. Howard Dean was supposed to have re-introduced the Democrat platform, and he cannot even agree with his own party over one of the key issues that killed their party the last time around, which was national security. The liberal side of the blogosphere can only use talking points so long. Eventually, they have to have something new, and as it stands, they are not the party of new ideas or progression.
He had opened his piece citing a recent example in New Jersey where talk-radio picked up on personal charges against Corzine airing on conservative blogs, which then caused “damage” to the campaign. “To Stoller, it was proof of how conservatives have mastered the art of using blogs as a deadly campaign weapon,” Crowley writes. Yet Corzine won the election easily anyway.
E & P fails to note that what Crowley wrote, which was that those charges never surfaced. Without a charge, no damage can be done. Remember: In politics the charge itself might be more damaging than whether or not it is true. Corzine had no charge leveled against him, so this point by E & P is moot.
In fact, Crowley admits that his argument for conservative blog supremacy may seem “counterintuitive,” noting the Howard Dean phenomenon in early 2004 and heavy Web traffic numbers for liberal blogs such as DailyKos. (He does not mention that studies of online traffic show that, overall, there are more highly-popular liberal blogs than conservative ones.) But he explains that “Democrats say there’s a key difference between liberals and conservatives online. Liberals use the Web to air ideas and vent grievances with one another, often ripping into Democratic leaders….Conservatives, by contrast, skillfully use the Web to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates."
Again, true to a point. We have elections every two years--Mid-terms and presidential. So, we are not constantly on a war-footing when it comes to candidates. The battle from the conservative side is mounted against the MSM and their continuing failure to deliver relevant, real news to America and the world. We pick up the slack. Take a look at sites like InstaPundit, Little Green Footballs, and PowerLine News. These sites pick up on tons of stories that never make it to the mainstream outlets. The majority of these stories are important. Case in point: Giuliani Sgrena. She is the Italian reporter that was involved in a check-point incident in Iraq.
She had been kidnapped by terrorists, and Italy agreed to pay a ransom. They sent Nicola Calipari, an intelligence agent, to Iraq to retrieve her. He told no one other than the senior ranking Italian officer. Upon her release, they were heading towards Baghdad Airport. And they did the stupidest thing by attempting to run the checkpoint. Our troops responded accordingly. She still maintains that it was no accident; the soldiers were trying to kill her and Calipari. Not ONE mention of this story surfaced on the networks, and only blurbs about it appeared in papers. The starboard side of the blogosphere was all over it. I ought to know because I was one of them on top of the story.
Crowley then comments that what really makes the conservative blogs allegedly more effective is the infrastructure provided by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and others--"all of which are quick to pass on the latest tidbit from the blogosphere."
The editors of E & P are about as bright as Crowley. That is not very bright folks. These people do not get us. We don not do this to be "influential," per se. We do what we do because we like to do, it is easy, and it keeps people informed. Hugh Hewitt appropriately pointed out in his book "BLOG" that bloggers are the next step in reporting and marketing. We are influential whether you are a heavyweight like Hewitt, Malkin, Simon, Johnson, or Reynolds, or if you are small fish like us. We each have our gifts and we each have our niche. That will never change. Nor will the media's foolishness regarding bloggers.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home