Comments on: Partisan football

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:52:44 +0000

The link I provided (to crookedtimber) was not principally about a discussion of ideas any more than the wizbang post. The tone set immediately was of insult. It was also wrong in that it ignored the fact that FoxNews covered the tsunami immediately and with as much depth as was available at every moment along the way. The confusion on that score is especially funny considering that FoxNews is generally considered by people on CrookedTimber to be the most right-wing and least useful news station. To have a post almost immediately afterward which decries partisan point scoring about the tsunami but which ignores the same on one’s very own blog, is a bit rich. It lends the impression that one uses the phrase ‘partisan point-scoring’ in a rather partisan point-scoring fashion.

By: Ripper

Ripper — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:17:51 +0000

By not caring about others you missed the traffic from thousands of compassionate surfers. —- http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1m&size=large&y=t&url=http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/003053.html#top http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1m&size=large&compare_sites=&y=t&url=http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004640.php#top

By: Phoenician in a time of Romans

Phoenician in a time of Romans — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:07:48 +0000

Speaking of partisan football, didn’t we just witness the comments section of a blog you’all might know about (Crookedtimber.org) turn a story about the tsunami into an 50+ comment whine fest about American TV by people who apparently didn’t realize that FoxNews had reports on the disaster almost immediately? So what the hell did you want or expect instead? A hundred posts all following each other saying “This is awful”, “Yes, it is awful”, “Indeed it is awful”? On the one hand you have a leftist blog that discusses TV coverage, with people disagreeing with each other without insult. On the other, you have a rightist blog that attempts to relate the number of meaningless posts (and every post on this subject is meaningless, except those saying how to donate) to “compassion” to score partisan points, with rancour and flamewars in the comments threads. The left side of the blogosphere is interested in ideas and talking about how they see the world around them. The right side is interested in winning over their self-perceived “enemies”. That says it all, really.

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:55:14 +0000

You can either ridicule wingnuts or ignore them, everything else is futile.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:53:54 +0000

While waiting for that day of peace and quiet, I have vowed to avoid all political blogs from now on, except the fun and satirical ones. Nothing personal, I just have a weak stomach and it does not improve by following the political blogosphere equivalent of usenet flame wars on any given topic. I’m in a very similar place right now. I’ve scaled back my blog reading (and commenting) enormously in the last 2 weeks and I feel much better for it. I’m trimming my daily intake down to an essential half-dozen or so, which as of now consists of CT, Wolcott, Berube, Majikthise, Body & Soul, and a few others. X’s Usenet analogy is increasingly apt, I’m afraid.

By: Richard Bellamy

Richard Bellamy — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:18:59 +0000

Of course, partisan pointscoring about blogging the disaster has to take a back seat to Sri Lanka’s partisan point scoring about actually assisting in the disaster recovery operations. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4130599.stm ” Sri Lanka rejects Israel rescuers”

By: x

Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:36:53 +0000

Have a look at alicublog’s latest shorter lileks on the tsunami for more of same partisan hooliganism (the honourable art of futbol is another thing). Meanwhile, other websites (buzzmachine for instance) seem to think the purpose of those lists of initially pledged aid by nation published in papers is to start a big macho contest to declare which country has the biggest penis, sorry, generosity. Obviously girly hypocritical France loses pathetically while the US, in spite of ‘stingy’ predictions, remains on top. The forces of nature are clearly not powerful enough to drown the need to frame everything in ideological terms. Let’s just hope and pray when the next big one comes, the internet will be the first thing to go. And the media. And the press. News will have to travel slowly by word of mouth and people will have time to think about what they say and no instant mass audience to sermonise to. That’s my dream disaster scenario – no victims and no damage except to push button fatwas. While waiting for that day of peace and quiet, I have vowed to avoid all political blogs from now on, except the fun and satirical ones. Nothing personal, I just have a weak stomach and it does not improve by following the political blogosphere equivalent of usenet flame wars on any given topic. Farewell everyone, and have a good 2005.

By: Martin Wisse

Martin Wisse — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:23:26 +0000

If you want to know what happens when you nobly ignore this sort of behaviour, look around on Usenet…

By: paul

paul — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:54:29 +0000

Being of two minds about this as about so many things, I agree that calling someone out for impugning someone’s compassion for political ends is worth doing, but I’m also reminded of a phrase of (dare I mention her?) Mrs Thatcher’s about denying an enemy “the oxygen of publicity.” Someone like the person cited (who I had never heard of) will enjoy having tweaked the CT crowd: he likely won’t understand the arguments against such a cheap stunt (scorekeepers aren’t that subtle). I don’t know what I would do differently: do you? Would more posts equal faster or better relief?

By: peter

peter — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:36:39 +0000

Tom, You can’t meaningfully tell people that. If they find his blog (much more likely now) they have to decide for themselves. You can’t inform someone else that a blog isn’t worth their serious attention: its not your decision (or mine) what is worth their serious attention. They must make up their own mind. Moreover, I doubt peer pressure will win us the sympathy of serious adults.* So what’s the point? I understand the sentiment that provoked this post, but this is throwing punches in the air, with one difference: the harder we throw the more likely Wizbang’s will actually land. *And I know what I am talking about here: by my calcualtions 56.4% of my decisions are driven primarily by spite.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:24:02 +0000

I agree with Henry and Daniel that denouncing this icky behavior is a worthwhile exercise. The value is not necessarily in causing the fellow to feel ashamed of himself (as others have rightly noted, he may well be impervious to such feelings), but in informing other people that this blogger is not worth serious attention.

By: David Tiley

David Tiley — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 02:51:44 +0000

What does he want? Attention! When does he get it? Now! Reminds me of this saying I have on my wall: “Never fight with a pig. You get all dirty and the pig likes it.” It does raise the perennial question; When is it worth engaging in combat? The obvious answer is – when it makes a difference to the reader, particularly when it slows the progress of a twisted meme. Hence all the meticulous work combatting the Klimate Krazies. But there is a bit of bloodless and dutiful utilitarianism in this. We also do it because we like it. Whack! Bam! Sock! Kathud! (Ninja Philosopher would make a great blog name.. and a fine intention).

By: Mrs Tilton

Mrs Tilton — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:42:39 +0000

I’ve notice quite a number of blogs—be they left, right, or whatever—that have posted about the disaster and linked to ways to help, if only by giving money (which is the only way most of us can help). I have no time for Glenn Reynolds, but if he has done so too, then fair play to him. Surely a calamity of this sort transcends any left/right/whatever divide. If this Wizbang bloke wants to make this a partisan thing, Henry is right to call him on it. And surely everybody who sees the matter for what it is – whether they call themselves left, right or whatever—should treat Wizbang with the contemptuous silence he deserves.

By: Dan Kervick

Dan Kervick — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:15:41 +0000

Wizbang’s argument: “disgusting”?, “contemptible”?, “loutish”?, “nasty”? Isn’t this all a bit petulant and extreme? Wizbang’s argument is pitiably weak. The conclusion – that it is false that liberals care more about their fellow man than conservatives – is hardly supported by the laughably small sample he brings forward – based as it is on a a tiny handful of weblogs. And even among the small number of individuals in that sample, there are all sorts of possible explanations of the differences in the frequency of tsunami-related posts which he fails to examine. But I have to reject the notion that there is something inherently awful and disgusting about mounting a partisan political argument on the foundation of this natural disaster.

By: George

George — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:12:54 +0000

Henry: I agree with you 90%. For the same reason, I though that Washington Post article criticizing President Bush for not making public comment sooner (cited by Eric Alterman and others) was rather shabby. Bush (or more likely his staff) was clearly doing something; that 4-nation coordination group did not come together out of thin air. But there’s also a grain of truth in what Wizbang says. The numerous times Glenn Reynolds linked to the Amazon Red Cross donation page doubtless led many people to give—as have your posts on the topic here. Atrios raised quite a bit of cash for various political candidates; how much could he raise for this effort? The Wizbang post strikes me a bit like those articles about how little various billionaires give to charity—one of which, IIRC, may have helped trigger the creation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Certainly it shows poor breeding to criticize another’s empathy or charity. But if it redounds to the greater good, where’s the harm?