Ace of Spades HQ

« An Unidentified Female Producer for Dan Rather: "Who's to Say that Palestinian Terror-Bombings Are Wrong?" | Main | Haiku Contest Winners »

September 26, 2004

Hugh Hewitt on the Times' Puffing for Paleoliberals

Instapundit didn't seem especially bothered by the NYT article on blogging, notable only for its failure to actually interview any bloggers making genuine news:

I think it's a pretty good article. Some people are unhappy that it focuses on the lefty bloggers, but that was the intent of the piece from the get-go, and it's been underway for a while -- I had a long conversation with the reporter a few weeks back -- and it's not as if folks like me and Andrew Sullivan and Mickey Kaus haven't had our time in the media spotlight.

With all due respect, Mr. Instapundit, you and the increasingly left-wing Andrew Sullivan may have in fact had your time in the media spotlight, but the bloggers who were most important in breaking this story haven't yet. Yes, the PowerLine guys have been on Fox and CNN, but that's because they deserved to be.

They, along with LGF and Bill from INDC (he who now just interviews subjects at will!) also deserved to be in a NYT article on blogging. They weren't, and they were omitted quite intentionally.

Furthermore, this sentence:

Some people are unhappy that it focuses on the lefty bloggers, but that was the intent of the piece from the get-go

... is simply a non-sequitor. Yes, of course the NYT set out to only interview lefty bloggers. And that is a defense against the charge of political bias how, exactly? Once again, the NYT is determined to promote leftist causes and leftist voices while ignoring their opponents; I don't see how the fact that this was their "intent from the get-go" is some sort of mitigation.

And we know that the NYT decided that maybe it ought to interview Charles Johnson with all this Rathergate craziness going on. They did interview him; they then not only failed to quote him, but to even mention the man's existence.

But Hugh Hewitt sums it up best:

This piece is what the lawyers call "an admission against interest" combined with an undeniable expression of liberal bias in MSM. The admission is that the blogosphere matters a lot. The expression of bias is the incredible series of whopping omissions in the coverage. This is MSM's attempt --and there will be many more-- to "credential" some of their favorites in the blogosphere, thus elevating them and hopefully their readership. How can you be surprised that the way left Times profiles way left bloggers for their way left audience to hopefully bookmark and consult as a sort of internet annex to the still dominant New York Times?
It is a vast cry for help, a plea for reinforcements. The bloggers are inside the citadel, so call in the allied bloggers.

As I wrote yesterday, this is just more Maginot Line thinking by MSM, and more of the same can be expected. The MSM is acting in response to the challenge to its authority as the Vatican did to Luther, first with indifference, then with threats, and eventually with attempted suppression and finally with capitulation and internal reform. The attempt at suppression will come in legal forms, with lawsuits about fair use and threats of business libel, but all for naught. The bleeding isn't just at CBS, and the wounded are angry.

The Times' motivation is transparent. With right-leaning bloggers suddenly getting getting all the attention, and deservedly so, given that they'd broken a major story, the Times has decided to give the left-wingers a little undeserved exposure of their own, to try leveling the playing field a bit.

Fair enough.

Does anyone imagine that if left-wing bloggers had broken a major story and were thus getting all the attention from the rest of the liberal legacy media that the New York Times would have tried for a bit of fairness and given prominent exposure to right wing bloggers?

Anyone?

Anyone at all?

posted by Ace at 07:49 PM

Comments

I was a little confused about Reynolds' response too.

By the by, do instalanches even put a dent in your traffic anymore?

Posted by: Elric on September 26, 2004 07:59 PM

The article would have been fine if it had explicitly admitted that this was a look at lefty bloggers. A newspaper can be biased and honest at the same time.

The Times is dishonest and biased.

Posted by: Mark on September 26, 2004 08:38 PM

Elric,

It depends. An Instapundit link can be worth five or ten thousand hits. Today's link didn't really give me very many hits at all; maybe 500-1000.

A link just saying that someone on the right is "unhappy" apparently doesn't attract a lot of clicks.

Posted by: ace on September 26, 2004 08:42 PM

Glenn Reynolds has gone on record recently that he is trying to calm things down when people are angry - that's why he referred to Kerry's grotesque destructive performance re Allawi as 'ill-conceived'. Of course by the next day, after Joe Lockhart's follow-up troll attack he was describing it as 'unacceptable' and 'appalling'.

Posted by: max on September 26, 2004 08:54 PM

Hey, Hugh Hewitt mentioned Luther in his column several days after I mentioned Luther here in your comments. I'll bet that fellow UM Law School graduate didn't even give me a friggin' hat tip. Son. Of. A. B*****.

Posted by: Birkel on September 26, 2004 09:28 PM

RE: The Charles Johnson interview: Don't worry, I'm sure they'll save the quotes (to be chopped up and yoinked out of context) for an "expose" on the owner of "the most prominent hate site on the web" somewhere down the road when they get REALLY mad.

I also thought the Insta post was interesting because he linked to Kos' whining, which was hysterical, basically boiling down to:

1. NYT article (accurately) portrays him and his commenters as the hate-filled fringe.

2. NYT article (accurately, I presume) paints a less-than-appetizing portrait of his achievements in the arenas of fashion and (implied) hygeine.

3. NYT reporter openly flirts with Wonkette in the piece, and draws unfavorable comparison with other bloggers. Lesson: Pretty and stupid beats fugly, dorky and spittle-flecked, no matter how long (and/or how SINCERELY) you've been waiting in the Bush-hating pumpkin patch. A real, Corey Haim as Lucas moment for Kos.

Just as an aside: In the mid-90s I was involved in a music scene that experienced a massive upgrade in its percieved coolness in a brief span of time, engendering Lucas-y feelings on the part of many dorks who didn't understand that even if the cool people start liking the same bands as the dorks, they don't start liking the dorks themselves. I imagine the ascendence of the blogosphere will be accompanied by similar expressions of whiny bitterness on both sides.

But it's easier for me to see (and to laugh at) when it happens on the other side.

Posted by: DTLV on September 26, 2004 09:49 PM

Apropos of nothing, but Ace, this one's for you.

Posted by: blaster on September 26, 2004 09:56 PM

If it had been a flattering portrayal of any of the bloggers depicted, I'd agree that it'd be something to complain about. I do not.

Posted by: Jim Treacher on September 26, 2004 10:44 PM

Jim T is right. Besides, I can't imagine you wanting to belong to a club that would have you as a member....

The blogosphere shouldn't want to be assimilated into the LLM. What would be the point? You don't need any creds from them, and to be noticed by them might be nice, but would ultimately diminish the impact.

Extra bonus point: When more and more blogs begin to turn off their comments section, you'll know the assimilation/isolation has begun. Open comments are the lifeblood of the blogs, and the last avenue for unfiltered information.

But it is Powerline, FR, LGF, Allah, this blog, and many others that kept the story alive by way of the comments section. The CBS story wouldn't have gotten much traction without interaction.

Personally, I have little attraction to blogs that don't allow comments, although I am an infrequent commenter. Comments keep the honest members of the blogoshpere healthy...it takes a mighty big pair to trot ideas out for everyone to see and attack...something the LLM has isolated itself from.

Hats off and much gratitude to every blogger with the guts to do this important work. When I can, I will definitely be making my info dollars go to bloggers.

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! on September 27, 2004 11:33 AM

He liked the article because Reynolds likes Wonkette for some reason. He's a major reason she picked up the traffic she did.

Why? Two options.

1. He likes to show he is politically broad-minded and he does this by linking to leftists even if they are rather silly and worthless. See the case of one Oliver Willis.

2. He likes big jugs. Again, see the case of Oliver Willis.

Posted by: Jer on September 27, 2004 02:36 PM

poker me up

Posted by: poker me up on December 30, 2004 04:24 PM

Oh no! Hamas' de facto press agent at the UN complains that she can't use her credit cards or rent a card now that she's been sanctioned as a terrorist operative
Why does this keep happening to members of the "political organization" (per Tucker Carlson) of Hamas?!?!

Tucker Carlson claims that it's weird that Ted Cruz is interested in the massacre of Christians by Nigerian Muslims, because he has "no track record of being interested in Christians," then blows off the massacre of Christians by Nigerian Muslims, saying it might or might not be a real concern
Tucker Carlson enjoys using the left-wing tactic of "Tactical Ignorance" to avoid taking positions on topics. Is Hamas really a terrorist organization? Tucker can't say. He hasn't looked into it enough, but "it seems like a political organization to me." Are Muslims slaughtering Christians in Nigeria? Again, Tucker just doesn't know. He hasn't examined the evidence yet. He knows every Palestinian Christian who said he was blocked from visiting holy sites in Bethlehem, but he just hasn't had the time to look into the mass slaughter of Christians in Nigeria that has been going on since (checks watch) 2009. He doesn't know, so he can't offer an opinion. Wouldn't be prudent, you know? Don't rush him! He'll sift through the evidence at some point in the future and render an opinion sometime around 2044.
Of course, if you need an opinion on Jewish Perfidy, he has all the facts at his fingertips and can give you a fully informed opinion pronto. Say, have you ever heard of the USS Liberty incident...?
You'd think that the main issue for Tucker Carlson, who pretends to be so deeply concerned about Palestinian Christians being bullied by Jews in Israel (supposedly), would be the massacre of 185,000 Christians in Nigeria itself. But no, his main problem is that Ted Cruz is talking about it, "who has no track record of being interested in Christians at all." And then he just shrugs as to whether this is even a real issue or not.
Whatever we do we must never "divide the right," huh?
Tucker is attacking Ted Cruz for bringing the issue up because he's acting as an apologist for Jihadism, and he can't cleanly admit that Jihadists are killing any Christians, anywhere. There is no daylight between him and CAIR at this point.
One might conclude that Tucker Carlson himself isn't interested in the plight of Christians -- except as they can be used as a cudgel to attack Jews.
Just gonna ask an Interesting Question myself -- why is it that Tucker Carlson's arguments all track with those shit out by Qatarian propaganda agents and the far left? That if Jews crush an ant underfoot it is worldwide news, but when Muslims slaughter Christians it elicits not even a vigorous shrug?

Sydney Sweeney has passed from celebrity to Meme Legend

Garth Merenghi is interviewed by the only man who can fathom his ineffable brilliance -- Garth Merenghi
From the comments:

I once glimpsed Garth in the penumbra betwixt my wake and sleep. He was in my dream, standing afar, not looking my way, nor did he acknowledge me. But I felt seen. And that's when I knew I was a traveler on the right path. I'm glad he's still with us.

Now that's some Merenghian prose.
Garth Merenghi on the writer's craft

Greetings, Traveler. If you still have not experienced Garth Merenghi -- Author, Dream-weaver, Visionary, plus Actor -- the six episodes of his Darkplace are still available on YouTube and supposedly upscaled to HD. (Viewing it now, it doesn't appeared upscaled for shit.)
I think the second episode, "Hell Hath Fury," is the best by a good margin. Try to at least watch through to that one. It's Mereghi's incisive but nuanced take on sexism.

TJM Returns with a discussion of Auteur Theory.

Podcast: The elections! NYC, Virginia, New Jersey, Texas, California, and the future prospects of the Republican party...

Update on Scott Adams:

Scott Adams had approval for this cancer drug but they hadn't scheduled him to get it. He was taking a turn for the worse. Trump had told him to call if he needed anything, so he did. Talked to Don Jr (who is in Africa) , then RFK Jr, then Dr Oz. Someone talked to Kaiser and he was scheduled. Shouldn't have needed it but he did and he says it saved his life.
Posted by: Notsothoreau

"Trump" goes trick-or-treating

Funny retro kid costumes, thanks to SMH
Good to see people honoring Lamont the Big Dummy

Four hours of retro Halloween commercials and specials
The first short is the original 1996 appearance of "Sam," the dangerous undead trick-or-treater from Trick r' Treat.

ICYMI: Australian journalist actually presses Kamala Harris when she repeatedly dodges questions about Biden's mental fitness
Kamala admits she didn't have the stamina to run for president, while continuing to insist he had the mental capacity to serve as president. He was too frail to run but perfectly strong enough to govern. Yeah sure whatever lying whore.

On Wednesday, we'll see the "Beaver Super-Moon." Which sounds hot.

Podcast: Historian and Pundit Robert Spencer joins us for a wide-ranging discussion about the Islamists in our midst: Mamdani in NYC, all across Europe, and others.

Full Episode: The Hardy Boys (and Nancy Drew) Meet Dracula
I don't remember this show, except for remembering that Nancy Drew was hot and the opening credits were foreboding and exicting

According to Grok, Latrine John-Pissoir has never failed to mention she is "black" (or "queer") during her book interviews
She may not know what the hell her book is about, but she definitely knows that "every day I wake up black and queer." Join the club, sister!

Schmoll: 53% of New Jersey likely voters say their neighbors are voting for Ciattarelli, while 47% say the cheater/grifter Mikie Sherrill
The "who do you think your neighbors are voting for" question is designed to avoid the Shy Tory problem, wherein conservative people lie to schmollsters because they don't want to go on record with a likely left-winger telling them who they're really voting for. So instead the question is who do you think your neighbors are voting for, so people can talk about who they themselves support without actually having to admit it to a left-wing rando stranger recording their answers on the phone.

Hackers take over University of Penn website, calling the school a "dogshit elitist institution full of woke retards" and threatening to release its admissions files to prove illegal racial discrimination
No lies detected so far

Live Now: Dana Loesch is interrogating Heritage President Kevin Roberts on his insistence that the gay Nazi Nick Fuentes is an absolutely essential "conservative" voice whose ideas we must take seriously and who we must absolutely not exclude based on his Naziism

TJM Complains about Wreck-It Ralph The very topical premiere of TJM's YouTube Channel.

Interesting football history: How the forward pass was created in response to the nineteen -- 19! -- people killed playing football in 1905 alone
The original rules of football did not allow forward passes. The ball was primarily advanced by running, with blockers forming lines with interlocked arms and just smashing into the similarly-interlocked defensive lines. It was basically Greek hoplite spear formations but with a semi-spherical ball. As calls to ban the sport entirely grew, some looked for ways to de-emphasize mass charges as the primary means of advancing the ball, and some specifically championed allowing a passer to throw the ball forward.