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