A reminder to I.D. readers that the I.R. doesn’t care for blogs and there has been an interesting on-again-off-again dialogue between the I.R. and some Montana bloggers.
Looking at the this article, I have to wonder if I am not just reading the print version of a blog.
Our previous insight on this issue appears here.
Kathleen Parker hates blogs. So, it seems, does Michael Lenehan (PDF), but his article is at least thought-provoking.
In addition to calling them ‘our’ new enemy, Parker compares blogs to al-Qaida, writing:
It is this latter — our new enemies — that interests me most. I don’t mean al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden, but the less visible, insidious enemies of decency, humanity and civility — the angry offspring of narcissism’s quickie marriage to instant gratification.
In contrast, newspapers are almost saintly:
Say what you will about the so-called mainstream media, but no industry agonizes more about how to improve its product, police its own members, and better serve its communities. Newspapers are filled with carpal-tunneled wretches, overworked and underpaid, who suffer near-pathological allegiance to getting it right.
Dismissing Jack Kelley and Jayson Blair (as well as ignoring the NYT’s shameful lies about the Iraq War, Judith Miller’s complicity in Plamegate, and burying the NSA story for one year) as little mistakes, Parker continues, comparing bloggers to savages in Lord of the Flies, children with toys, and an “ego-gratifying rabble.”
Precious little substance in this piece for such an adult, responsible journalist. One would think that her elevated, deserved position as a member of the media would lead to a piece that substantively addressed blogs.
In my most deluded moments, I don’t pretend that my contributions to the world via this little blog make much of a difference, but the irrational howling of those in the mainstream media–including right wing columnists–makes me wonder if we aren’t really on the verge of something important. The democratization of communication has always been met with outraged protest from those in power, as well as complaints about quality and civility. In the end, more democratic distrbution of information always wins. A form of press that is easy to distribute, not controlled by major corporations, and has shown a willingness to take a critical position that the mainstream media has been unwilling to, can’t be a bad thing.
It’s no coincidence that someone in the mainstream press would be increasingly shrill about a vibrant form of discourse. The number of people reading (and more importantly, contributing to) blogs is growing every day. The same certainly can’t be said for newspapers.
I remember Mark Racicot being one of the most humorless politicians I have ever seen in action. Bland, not terribly intellectual, no real sense of humor. Turns out I was wrong about the last part: this guy is funny.
Actually visiting Montana, Racicot had this insight to offer:
“It’s a tough agenda,” he said. “This is a man who will never take the path of least resistance. If he thinks it’s the right thing to do, he will confront an issue.”
“I think we will see him rebound. … I believe he will go down as one of the best presidents ever in the history of this country,” Racicot said.
I mean, come on. If everything goes right Bush, he might move past Harding, maybe Harrison (the one who died after a month), but one of the best presidents ever?
Faith-based history.
I thought I would go back and check the issue that probably got me started on this blog, the media’s coverage of Natalee Holloway and Karl Rove’s potential involvement in Plamegate. Based on MSNBC and Faux coverage, one would assume that Natalee would still be in the lead, but is she?
Back on July 5th, I noted these Google News hits:
A search of Google News shows the following results this morning:
Karl Rove Plame: 162 hits
Natalee Holloway: 12,900 hits
Shasta Groene: 2,710 hits
What are the numbers as 2005 comes to an end?
Karl Rove Plame: 1080 hits
Natalee Holloway: 632 hits
Shasta Groene: 58 hits
Jason Mohr at the IR has some insight on the recent Bill Skidmore editorial about Abramhoff, Burns, and Baucus.
He seems less than impressed with us:
But bloggers would probably give me a different finger, ‘cause bashing the IR has to be a helluva lot more fun.
Andrew Sullivan points out this high-quality piece of GOP propaganda in the Washington Times today.
Vice President Dick Cheney has grown closer to President Bush as the two men prepare for their sixth year in office, according to White House officials who scoff at press speculation of a rift.
“I don’t think the relationship is strained at all,” said a senior administration official in the vice president’s office on the condition of anonymity. “Every once in a while, I see stuff written to that effect, but … I think it’s closer than it has ever been.”
Now, that quotation sure needed the cover of anonymity. I mean, someone could definitely lose their job for providing fluff, PR spin for the administration.
