Who Will Save the Gray Lady from the Clutches of the Fascist Octopus?

This of course being opposed to poor David Brooks, who only has a column in the frigging New York Times.

He acts like doesn’t even know about the rightwing hatemail campaigns. He damn well does. Idiot. But, we already knew that.

Damn, how did I ever miss “Revenge of the Mutant Camels”? Ebay, here I come…

But it might be something else, too.

What, like a nefarious plot by Islamofascists to take over America through “legitimate” means? Or maybe the “something else” is “nothing at all”? Kos has been writing posts, big and small, on a daily basis, for a long, long time. People have a pretty good sense of him, and their trust in him, such as it is, is likely to be robust. I suspect those same people have less reason to trust Brooks, Zengerle, et al.

This whole thing is so stupid. Kos has never been particularly leftist, but he’s long been pretty anti-DLC. I find it bizarre that people think there is something out of character about his support for the candidate who represents, by most accounts, the best opportunity to beat the DLC candidate. OTOH, he is wierdly sized, and a certain amount of distrust on that basis seems entirely appropriate.

Squadrons of rabid, venom-spitting lambs? I think David Brooks must be taking writing lessons from the master of the mixed-whipped-and-pureed metaphor, Thomas Friedman.

Seth: Well, to be honest, I don’t read Daily Kos much these days, so I couldn’t say about the Warner business in particular. But, IIRC, this narrative was around since Jerome Armstrong and Kos-types did consulting for campaigns in 2004. Even though it was disclosed numerous times and there was even a disclaimer, it was treated as some big revelation that they did this work while blogging about those campaigns, even though disclaimers were made every time. It was transparently fake then and I don’t see any difference in the current ruckus so far regarding disclaimers and such.

I read the linked article, but the comments about ‘really just a direct mail’ got me. Daily Kos is a community site. I’ve belonged to several internet communities, political and nonpolitical. Saying its like direct mail just crams community sites into a wildly inappropriate pre-existing category that vaguely resembles them. One might as well call that Townhouse mailing list nothing but a form of direct mail.

The particularly stupid aspect of the direct mail comment is that you don’t need to hire Kos to get your word out on Daily Kos. You can post there yourself. MAGIC.

Then he talks about how blgogers can be bought. Oookay. Does “The Washington Times” ring any bells? You can buy someone in pretty much any field. So I’m not sure exactly what point he’s making here, unless it’s to slur Daily Kos indirectly by implying that the site has been bought. Since after all that’s the focus of his article. Not to mention there’s nothing wrong with having advocates. They just need to disclose any links or interests. That’s ethics, and that’s free speech.

Lots of people think a lot of media professionals are bought and paid for already, which is part of what fueled the rise of blogs. The internet is just another media, after all, it’s not that different from the current ones.

His anecdote about the Kossack and the editor is as amusing as it is unsourced. However, I would consider just who it is getting jobs in the media. Because in my unscientific opinion there seem to be a lot more right wingers yearning to make that leap while simultaneously dissing the ‘Liberal Media’. At least here in the US, in the blogging scene.

Then there’s his assuming the moral high ground of the beleaguered union worker, as compared to his carefully cherrypicked ‘Liberal Elite’ bloggers. I found that part upsetting, especially since Leftist blogs have in my experience been extremely supportive of labor and unions.

The Washington Post will print bought and paid for op-eds without identifying the affiliations of the author.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/16/183226/505

Josh Marshall called it “Op ed Payola” in 2002.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2002_03_03.php

Andrew Young writes op-eds defending Wal-Mart without revealing that he’s on their payroll- and newspapers print them.

Kos does not claim to be a source of objective news. He’s what used to be called a pamphleteer. And unlike the newspapers, he tells you about his sources of income.

Sandals, what we have here is a failure of communication. You’ve thoroughly re-iterated Nolan’s point – “They think this is business as usual”. I grasp that you think this is business as usual. That doesn’t leave much more to say, except endless repetition that this is business as usual, the MSM is supposedly worse, so what’s the problem, etc. etc. No doubt the same could be said of stock-touting (and has!).

Henry, I wish you would post some of the thoughtful commentary that’s being written, rather than cherry-picking the overwrought paragraphs. I found the last part of Brook’s flame much more relevant:

“And so the Kingpin has his relationships and his understandings and his networks and his compromises. In just a few short years he has achieved a level of self-importance it took those in the pre-blog political class decades to acquire.

He has challenged his enemy and become it.”

That, too, is business as usual.

“Henry, I wish you would post some of the thoughtful commentary that’s being written, rather than cherry-picking the overwrought paragraphs.”

I too wish Brooks was producing some thoughtful commentary.

“the MSM is supposedly worse”

And I wish you were able to read and make distinctions. But I’m more likely to see the former wish granted.

Looking back at the Brooks quote, I wonder if the “rabid lamb” thing indicates that Friedman’s supple grasp of metaphor is rubbing off on him.

Lambs can be rabid, just like any other mammal. We must be wary of rabid sheep and cows.

I think the idea of a “squadron” of rabid animals is the stupid part. Rabid animals are incapable of pack-like behavior, they’re too busy wandering around aimlessly, upset by their inability to swallow, with occasional bursts of aggression.

Heh, sorry for going overboard…it wasn’t your article, after all.

I think that business as usual in the mainstream press is quite a bit worse in terms of journalistics ethics than ‘blogistan’ though. Even if journalists are honest about their conflicts on an individual level (which they arn’t a lot of the time), there’s a hell of a lot of organizational and professional conflict of interest that for the most part doesnt arise for bloggers.

Who says the New York Times doesn’t run comics? David Brooks’ Op-Ed piece on “Kos the Kingpin” had to have been one of the funniest things I have ever read in those august pages. Without the byline, I would have taken it for a parody-piece off one of the second-tier right-wing blogs –Protein Wisdom,maybe. Brooks has often been criticised for his off-the-mark takes on a lot of things: but this column takes the cake. That “mainstream” media often doesn’t “get” the dynamics of the blogosphere isn’t really news at this point: but getting it SO wrong, as David Brooks did in his ludicrous screed is truly dredging brave new depths of cluelessness.

The New York Times is really just like direct mail! David Brooks writes a column and all those NYT readers digest the instructions it contains, and stumble off, zombie-like, to carry out their appointed tasks!

But seriously, as near as I can work out, the anti-blog criticisms from fearful journalists are boiling down to two basic complaints:

1) Anybody can write a blog! Writing should be confined to a few accredited newspapers and magazines!

2) Newspapers and magazines are numerous and diverse, while the blogs are few, and their tiny cabal of writers wield immense power and influence!

It doesn’t seem to be occurring to them to notice how comically contradictory the two complaints are.

Splendid how the Merritt cover artist made the woman’s red-polished thumbnails stand in for nipples. Real craftsmanship, that.

bob mcm: organized and deliberate, sure. Succeed? Doubtful. Maybe reduce Markos’ personal income and influence a little and cause some kossacks to hang out elsewhere — a minor tactical win but no real strategic gain. Even that I doubt. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if he came out ahead on all this, just because of the people who will show up expecting hate speech only to find a crowded, noisy, room full of mostly-regular folks who are concerned about their government and the way things are going.

Chris Nolan and Jesse Kornbluth and the like think Markos is just blowing smoke when he says that it’s not about him, or that it ultimately doesn’t matter whether the punditocracy trashes, praises or ignores. But he isn’t, it isn’t, and it doesn’t. In fact Markos is just about the crappiest writer with front page access at DKos. Brooks et al may want it to be about Markos but Markos is just the proprietor, not the institution. The DKos community isn’t going to collapse over a piddly non-story like Jerome’s run-in with the SEC, but even if the orange place gets slammed, there are nearby pubs decorated in yellow, green, purple, various shades of blue, some sort of reddish taupe, and so many other colors besides.

In fact Markos is just about the crappiest writer with front page access at DKos.

That’s perhaps the biggest challenge to the op-ed pundit parade: the tacit acknowledgement online (through links and comments) that there are people smarter or more eloquent or with greater access to information than you.

It’s an overused quotation, but I think we’re past ‘then they laugh at you’ and are now seeing ‘then they fight you’.

“…bob mcm: organized and deliberate, sure. Succeed?”

Detention for Dangerous Speech …Jack Balkin

“Posner’s main thesis is controversial enough. But in the middle, he offers the following rather surprising statements about the First Amendment:” …Jack Balkin

“Throughout American history, states and the federal government have criminalized speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the United States government and other subversive activities. These laws, which long survived judicial scrutiny, authorized criminal punishment of people who were dangerous but hadn’t actually caused harm.” …Posner

“Although in 1969 the Supreme Court held that under the First Amendment governments can ban only speech that would cause “imminent” harm– like incitement to riot– it remains an open question whether this standard is workable in an age of global terrorism exemplified by the Sept. 11 attacks. Less restrictive tests applied in earlier cases could be resurrected if the United States created a similar statute to counter the modern wave of terrorism.” …Posner

With Alito & Roberts on the court, and Eugene Debs & Emma Goldman as precedents for what might be considered “dangerous speech”;with the expansive powers granted the Executive and unknown degrees of surveillance…well, I say no more.

Ok, I say more:The MSM is giving support to the notion that the left side of the blog commentariat is an uncontrolled violent rabble. Are we close to the Bush administration dragging Kos and Atrios off to Gitmo, with the full support of the MSM? Remember blogs ain’t “real journalism”, and aren’t protected by the 1st.

How close? An attack on Iran or nuke in Chicago or another very narrow election close? Who knows?

I think McManus is showing the appropriate degree of paranoia. I hardly know how to combat the Big Media Meanies but Wolcott might be on the right track.

It’s irresponsible NOT to, Uncle Kvetch. It’s irresponsible not to.

I think the most damning possibility to explain Kos’ support of Warner — and the manner in which this lines up with Jerome’s employment — is that some liberal blog higher-ups are themselves becoming subject to some sort of “conventional wisdom” or “groupthink” or “echo chamber” or whatever you want to call it, in which case Brooks & co. are in a glass house.

But even that seems unlikely. The above-mentioned “winnerism” of Markos is likely the cause. Plus, he hasn’t actually endorsed the guy, right? Whenever Schweitzer makes news I seem to recall Markos making mention of that on the site, as well as Jerome’s writers at MyDD. And Schweitzer has much the same appeal as Warner: a Dem winning in a red state (among other qualifications). If Feingold were to run I’m sure Kos would run it, but wouldn’t get behind him in the same way because I’m sure he sees an electability question there. And if Gore decides to run, my money’s on Kos getting behind him.

Whatever the hell Chris Nolan knows about unions, or the people in them, you could put in a thimble. Perhaps if said union members WERE “sitting in front of their computers and passoniate about politics” they would not be bending over, dreading the unjust screwing they are about to recieve. It is indeed the Swift Boating of Kos! And I don’t even like the friggin guy one bit.

I think Dirk is onto something here. These guys have to write a column every week, and they run out of topics.

It’s worthwhile to get yourself involved into a little sweet controversy that can be milked for months or even years.