The NYT Sunday Magazine Story on Blogs that Everyone's Linking to

I don't really see any inherent problem in writing an article concentrating almost solely on left-wing bloggers, especially if that was the stated intention from the get-go. (Though, if that was was the intention from the beginning then I don't quite understand why the reporter talked to Charles Johnson for 40 minutes only to not use any of the interview in the article.) I also think that it's unrealistic to ask for a detailed encomium to all the blogs responsible for the debunking of the fraudulent CBS memos, when that's a story which took place over the last couple of weeks and the turnaround time for a magazine piece like this is a matter of months.

The remarkable thing about this piece isn't "liberal" bias. It's really only about the 1,117th most egregious example of media bias I've seen this month. That problem could have simply been solved by making it more clear that the piece was only to be about lefty political blogs, ideally in the title. No, Sullivan's right, the salient point I got from reading this article is something I've noticed recently , the shift of political blogging from a medium for analysis to a medium for activism, mostly left-wing activism.

Hugh Hewitt may be right that this is an attempt by the NYT to introduce the nasty, angry, ferociously partisan lefty bloggers who now dominate the medium to their readership, thereby legitimizing and credentializling them (with Wonkette thrown in for a little comedy and T&A break, natch). If that was indeed reporter Matthew Klam's assignment, then he had the last laugh. As Jim Treacher points out (link via Mary) none of the subjects whom Klam profiled came off looking particularly good. Most amusing is how Klam deftly shows Markos Zuniga, the proprietor of the vile, hate-filled, anti-American website "The Daily Kos" to be exactly the creepy little dork that anyone who has read his vitriolic, fanatical little screeds for more than two seconds would assume him to be. Apparently the portrayal in the article has caused some of his cultish admirers to foam at the mouth.

As both Treacher and David Frum point out, non-lefty bloggers who didn't make the cut should actually be thankful they escaped a similarly cruel portrayal in the pages of the NYT Sunday Magazine. I even wonder if Klam interviewed Charles Johnson expecting him to be a creepy fanatic like Kos. When that turned out not to be the case, the interview ended up on the cutting room floor.

Frum has the smartest take on this piece. He thinks it's really about what Leon Wieseltier has called "the deranging influence of blogs." The liberal-Democratic establishment was told that they should pay attention to blogs because blogs would be their talk radio. So they started listening to bloggers and the bloggers convinced them that the average American had the same visceral hatred of George W. Bush that they did, which led to a series of idiotic decisions on the part of the DNC and of Democratic voters which are still ongoing. They just may have sold their party down the river at the behest of a handful of embittered losers and a chick who's obsessed with making the same joke about ass-fucking over and over again. Klam set out to expose these people, and the result is a well-written, funny piece.

Comments

[Catherine]

I have another take, though it's just an impression, and I wouldn't put money on it.

Frum & Daily Kos are right: the piece is a take-down of liberal bloggers. Instapundit, Kaus & Sullivan are called "gentlemen" and "journalists."

I was astonished at the respect shown for conservative bloggers (I realize Kaus is a Democrat, but in the world of Daily Kos and Atrios he may as well be).

I think this may be the beginning of an open battle within the Democratic Party between DLC types & the Dail Kos faction, between establishment liberalism (that's how Kos sees it, right?) and blog liberalism.

There's a fascinating essay in THE NATION about the rejuvenation of NYRB by 9-11 and the Iraq War.

According to THE NATION, the NYRB has devoted itself to attacking the "liberal hawks": Paul Berman, Michael Ignatieff, Bill Keller, David Remnick.

I think it's possible the liberal hawks have decided it's time for them to take back their Party.

I think they're right, and I hope they succeed.

[Catherine]

I'm curious whether you or your readers have the impression that conservative/centrist blogs are more civil than liberal/left blogs.

I've had this impression, but had chalked it up to my own bias.

After reading the NYTIMES, I'm not sure: maybe liberal/left blogs really are angrier, nastier, crazier, more given to conspiracy mongering, etc. (Brad DeLong's blog is particularly shocking to me. Here is a well-known professor who worked on the Clinton health care plan sounding for all the world like . . . a guy sitting in his living room wearing pajamas. Compare Arnold Kling, who is the same age, went to the same school, etc.)

After reading Frum it occurred to me that non-crazy liberal writers don't have to write blogs; they have jobs.

Non-crazy conservative writers, OTOH, may be less likely to seek or land positions inside the MSM or in academia.

The "Bill Kellers" of the right may be more likely to write blogs than the Bill Kellers of the left.

If so, that's good for Republicans, and almost certainly bad for Democrats.

[Eric]

Catherine:

Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting. Your comments are always the best. I'd put you on the same level as famed blog commenter Shannon Love, who now has her own blog.

I think your first comment about the open war between more centrist DLC types and "blog liberals" is right on the money. If you read this in conjunction with the recent Sunday Times article on 527s, you see that these two groups, hyper-partisan, activist bloggers like Kos and Atrios, as well as the 527s, both of whom are inter-connected, don't just want to influence the direction of the Democratic Party establishment, they want to replace it. This piece may have been meant as a wakeup call to the more sane establishment liberals.

I, of course, also agree with your point about the different levels of civility on the different types of blogs. I'm often appalled at the level of vitriol and conspiracy-mongering on even the more supposedly centrist blogs: Brad DeLong (as you say), Mark Kleinman, Matthew Yglesias, etc. And, even if the bloggers is a bit saner, like say, Kevin Drum, the comments are just ridiculous.

Part of it is simply being members of the party that's out of power. I think the idea you have is great and, as far as I know, original i.e. since there are so few conservatives, centrists, and libertarians in the MSM or academia, there were a lot of sane, talented conservatives, centrists, and libertarians with a writing jones who didn't get to do any writing before blogging came along. Meanwhile, any sane liberal or leftist with any talent could easily get a job in the MSM, so, those who didn't have any experience before blogging tend to be a bit off, like Kos.

The other factor is "the deranging influence of blogs" which I talk about above. It's quote from that brilliant polemic-disguised-as-a-book-review by Leon Wieseltier on that recent "scummy little book" by what's his name about the lefty who tries to kill George Bush. I, of course, haven't read the book and don't intend to, but one thing that's particularly creepy about it, I guess, is that the guy reads real weblogs. Kos is actually mentioned and there are references to real posts. Blogs, especially those with a community of commenters or e-mailers, can synergestically work to drive both the blogger and their readers a little bit more insane. They can push each other a little bit farther in the direction they're already going.

I think this is what's happened to Marshall. He started as sane. He's been published in the New Yorker and the Atlantic Monthly, and has a bunch of other paying, print-journalism jobs. Yet, he keeps blogging and says that's his favorite thing. He can't resist putting his uncensored id on the internet. Now, here he is making Bush=Hitler statements. Liberal bloggers are often either off-their-rocker liberals who couldn't get a job in the MSM or the Democratic Party establishment, or establishment liberals who have gone a bit crazy through the blogging process.

[mary]

I even wonder if Klam interviewed Charles Johnson expecting him to be a creepy fanatic like Kos. When that turned out not to be the case, the interview ended up on the cutting room floor.

I think you’re right - if Klam read what the left-wing blogs say about LGF, he was probably expecting Charles to be a David Duke type. Instead he found a polite anti-fascist. What a surprise.

I think there is a "deranging influence of blogs", not just among the bloggers, but also the readers. There are so many people expressing absurd opinions (ie. LGF=racism) on an everyday basis, a blogger can lose their sense of reality.

A few days ago I did a post on the influence of Nazism on the Palestinians, with a few Hizbollah members doing their usual 'Seig Heil' for Allah routine, and a couple of Palestinians on the Gaza strip holding a Nazi flag. My daughter took a look at it and she said "Hindus use the swastika symbol. Maybe those Palestinians are Hindus"

I responded with a long rant about the Grand Mufti, Hitler, and the bias that’s a part of the Palestinian version of Islamic law. When I was finally finished, my daughter said - "Mom, I was joking..don’t you know a joke when you hear one?"

I said - "When some people say things like that on the internet, they’re not joking". Left-wing blogs come up with the most bizarre rationalizations for Islamist extremism -doublespeak explanations that make Orwell's 1984 sound tame. If you read too many of them, they can make your head spin.

[Catherine]

Hi Eric!

Wow.

I will now have to find out who Shannon Love actually is!

If you read this in conjunction with the recent Sunday Times article on 527s, you see that these two groups, hyper-partisan, activist bloggers like Kos and Atrios, as well as the 527s, both of whom are inter-connected, don't just want to influence the direction of the Democratic Party establishment, they want to replace it.

Interesting----thanks.

I'm very intrigued by: wither the Democrats?

What conservatives tend not to see is the ferocity of the attacks-from-the-left that the MSM must deal with 24/7. Listen to anything Michael Moore has to say: invariably he rants about the MSM "failing the American people" etc. Even Jay Leno, in his interview with the LA WEEKLY, says that Michael Moore is doing the job of the MSM, because the MSM has failed to do it.

Of course, I've posted at times about my "mixed marriage" . . . which maybe I shouldn't have . . . but my feeling is that my husband is starting to feel as alienated from the Michael Moore faction as he does from George Bush.

I may be overstating it, but in the past, when the subject of Moore came up, my husband would have a dismissive reaction. Moore was a fool and a liar, but he was harmless. That sort of thing. (AND I WANT TO STOP RIGHT HERE AND SAY THIS IS MY IMPRESSION----MY HUSBAND MIGHT RADICALLY DISAGREE.)

Recently, his tone has changed. Now, when the Moore faction of the Democratic Party comes up, I hear an element of disgust and what I take to be incipient anger in his voice.

Having been a Democrat forever myself, I'm thinking the Dems must now have a serious fight within the ranks. I personally can't be a Democrat as long as Michael Moore sits in an honored position on-camera at the Democratic convention; the Democratic Party isn't big enough for the two of us.

Terrye has said the same thing on Roger's blog.

Mainstream Democrats know this.

I guess what I'm saying is that people like my husband, people who are serious establishment liberal types, certainly do not feel responsible for Kerry's campaign, nor for the huge blow-out humiliation they expect he is now going to visit upon them.

I'm thinking a Kerry loss will be good for the Democrats, and good for the country, too, if it means the Joe Liebermans & Evan Bayhs take over.

Repeating myself: Kos is right. Klam's article was a brutal takedown of lefty bloggers.

Look at this passage.

The Dean phenomenon drew so many new people to the grass roots (or ''netroots,'' as the Dean bloggers used to call them) of presidential politics that a kind of fragmentation occurred in what had been, until then, a blog culture dominated by credentialed gentlemen like Kaus, Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds, a conservative law professor whose blog, Instapundit, is read faithfully at the White House.

When was the last time you saw the NYTIMES call conservatives "credentialed gentlemen"?

I'd guess never.

[Catherine]

Part of it is simply being members of the party that's out of power.

Right, absolutely. I've wondered how much this explains.

I was still a Democrat during the 2nd Clinton term, so I don't know how crazy the rhetoric got on the right . . . but on the other hand, that was when I began subscribing to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, which was Clinton-Haters Central, and they sounded nothing like Daily Kos.

Still, that's not the appropriate comparison. There weren't any blogs back then.

I do see conservatives at The Corner frequently allude to the lessons they learned about just how effective it was for conservatives to become publicly identified as People-Who-Hate-The-President.

(Btw, very soon after 9-11 I decided never again to hate our president, no matter who he is. When I told my sister, she said she'd decided the same thing.)

The funny thing is, conservatives have "overlearned" some of those lessons.

They all thought the Swift Boat campaign was a disaster; then they thought Zell Miller was a disaster; Arnold's "girly men" line was a disaster; and on it goes. Conservative pundits are like Mark Twain's cat these days.

"We should be careful to get out of an experience all the wisdom that is in it -- not like the cat that sits on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot lid again -- and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore."

Mark Twain

[Catherine]

Yet, he keeps blogging and says that's his favorite thing. He can't resist putting his uncensored id on the internet. Now, here he is making Bush=Hitler statements. Liberal bloggers are often either off-their-rocker liberals who couldn't get a job in the MSM or the Democratic Party establishment, or establishment liberals who have gone a bit crazy through the blogging process.

I haven't read Marshall a lot, but that is sure my impression.

I remember back when he was interviewing Ken Pollack----things like that.

His tone was less-----it was less id-like!

That's a great way of putting it.

It does seem that liberal bloggers are starting to display too much id.

How much Freud have you read?

Freud's whole theory of art, which was basically a theory of narrative (if I'm remembering correctly) was that what novelists & artists do is disguise the contents of their unconscious in order to make them palatable to other human beings.

The idea being: nobody wants to see your id.

[Jim Treacher]

"It does seem that liberal bloggers are starting to display too much id."

I think they're taking their cues from the Kerry campaign.

[Noah Herring]

gater odontoglossum relock gudesire taxless rastus overpessimistic protogynous
Trial could be last chapter in 1963 bombing
http://www.softmedia4u.com/seychelles/