What's This Supposed To Mean?

At talking points memo, David Kurtz links to this fairly egregious article in the New York Times, titling his post "The Ties That Bind":

New on the Web: Politics as Usual

THE Netroots.” “People Power.” “Crashing the Gate.” The lingo of liberal Web bloggers bespeaks contempt for the political establishment. The same disdain is apparent among many bloggers on the right, who argued passionately for a change in the slate of House Republican leaders — and who wallowed in woe-is-the-party pity when the establishment ignored them.

You might think that with the kind of rhetoric bloggers regularly muster against politicians, they would never work for them. But you would be wrong. . . . [T]his year, candidates across the country found plenty of outsiders ready and willing to move inside their campaigns. Candidates hired some bloggers to blog and paid others consulting fees for Internet strategy advice or more traditional campaign tasks like opposition research.

Here is a listing of some of the most influential bloggers who went to work for campaigns this year, what they were paid according to campaign disclosure documents, and praiseworthy posts about their employers or critical ones of their employers’ opponents.

There is a very nasty implication of bloggers for sale to that article and David Kurtz chooses to endorse that. That is darned egregious of him. But he has shown disdain for the Left blogs for some time. He has never been a friend of the Left blogs. His right, but something to keep in mind when you read his work. He is an Establishment type through and through.

< Panel Explores Death Penalty and Wrongful Convictions | BCS Madness >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    a bit disingenous on his part (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 03:31:08 PM EST
    he's not exactly subjective, considering the fact that bloggers represent a competitor to the print media that pays his bills. a fact he neglected to mention.

    as long as bloggers, of whaterver persuation, disclose their paid relationship to a candidate, they're no different than any other campaign employee.

    i think what truly irks mr. kurtz is that he didn't get on that bandwagon.

    Different Kurtz (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    though your critique applies to Glover.

    you're right (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 09:36:08 PM EST
    i was in the middle of doing wash, and wasn't paying as close attention as i should have been.

    damn dryer! :)


    cpinva's point is correct ... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Sailor on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    a citizen's only choice before was to write a letter to the editor.

    Now we can publish on our own, cite real time facts for our beliefs and actually participate in the news.

    Kos et al didn't come about because they had millions/billions of dollars to buy media media outlets, they happened because people read them and could decide for themselves whether they were right (partially belief based, partially thru fact checking) and contribute to the discussion.

    That's when advertising $$ kicked in. It was credibility before the money instead of the reverse, (e.g. mega corps own 90% of the news outlets, G.E., Murdoch, etc.)

    The MSM has been shallow and biased for years, (see coverage of clinton's lies about BJs v. coverage about bush's lies about WMDs).

    Now pundits perceive a threat because we can cite facts for calling their lies lies, but all they can do is continue to lie ... and blame incivility of 'bloggers' for the situation they find themselves in. It's almost like they are trying to defend that only they can have opinions about our democracy and the rest of just have to listen to their blatherings.

    Gee, how odd, a small number of folks saying anything to defend their way of life in a world of advancing technology.

    I'm sure that's never happened to any other Americans in the past.

    Yes (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 04:30:25 PM EST
    The point is correct. But there was a misidentification of which Kurtz was referenced.

    That's all I meant.


    Hi BTD, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Sailor on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 05:09:01 PM EST
    I wasn't commenting on your response, just cpinva's.

    Sorry for the confusion,



    First, you must be a starving artist (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by koshembos on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 06:17:00 PM EST
    Old school thinking, around the 19th century, was that 'first, you must be a starving artist.' Well those days are long gone. Bloggers should not be starving either despite the Kurtzes of the world.

    As for showing disdain, I see nothing wrong with that. As an old timer at a university, I wish the newly minted assistant professors break down the front door and proclaim that we old timers are full of it. The enthusiasm, motivation, sharpness and self assurance are the best way to a newer and better generation. Same holds for the Bloggers and the old time MSM.

    After all, the MSM will stand trial in the court upstairs for collaboration and supporting the killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the Pillaging of America to enrich the obscenely rich.

    Nonetheless (none / 0) (#7)
    by unbill on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    I think that this information is important. I want to know who is behind these new political powerbrokers. Here is the chart from the NYT.

    Transparency as a political principle doesn't stop at the gates of the blogosphere. Especially since established bloggers are now taking in and spending seven-figured sums of political money, meeting former presidents and being interviewed on CNN on election night.

    If I were a blogger, I wouldn't attack the messenger here, but rather ask some serious questions about credibility. The tired-old myth of how blogs got started doesn't really work anymore now that blogging has become important and influential business.

    Hmm? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 10:34:25 PM EST
    The tired-old myth of how blogs got started doesn't really work anymore now that blogging has become important and influential business.

    What, pray tell, is the real story of Where Blogs Come From? I could have sworn that Eschaton and Instapundit started with relatively little fanfare. Heck, I remember before blogs were "blogs" and sites like BadAssMofo and Neoflux were just... sites. Clearly, though, I was missing the nefarious plots of the Man Behind The Curtain.

    But anyway. It seems to me that to have a truly incestuous relationship of the kind we see in the Beltway-MSM complex is simply beyond the scope of a blog. What does a politician have to offer a blog, really? They can give a blogger money, obviously, but that's not really the same thing. There are plenty of paid shills out there with unreadable, unsuccessful websites. (Pajamas Media, anyone?) Despite all the hysterics about politicians secretly buying favorable blog coverage, money can't buy good content, which is the coin of the realm in Blogtopia.

    Which is where things really start to differ from the mass media, where market access is key. (Funny how this spawned "access journalism", isn't it?) What's the analogue of, for example, Clear Channel giving money to politicians and politicians "coincidentally" loosening regulations to let CC monopolize more and more of the market? The only way this is remotely possible on the Intertubes would be some sort of anti-net neutrality scheme, the end result of which would be to slow down anti-establishment blogs and speed up the ones run by your useful idiots and sycophants.

    Actually, since Republican piggybank Google owns Blogger and Youtube now, this might not be so far-fetched... (cue Theremin music)


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 07:12:09 PM EST
    Can we ask the same questions of the Media?

    But... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 07:18:39 PM EST
    ...not limited to those same questions.

    Of course (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    The influence questions are quite different.

    I just realized (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 07:53:12 PM EST
    I read your earlier question as "as the Media?" so my response probably made no sense.

    It (none / 0) (#13)
    by aw on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 08:05:35 PM EST
    made as much sense as anything else I've heard today.

    OK. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 08:09:47 PM EST
    I think. :-)

    Disclosure is enough. (none / 0) (#8)
    by timber on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 06:35:51 PM EST
    Blogs are partisan activity.  As long as bloggers disclose their relationship,  I have no problems with it.  Also as long as bloggers tell the truth at all times and not do spins and propaganda that are dishonest or false.  

    When you're riding a dinosaur... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 05:10:17 PM EST
    ...while people in Ferrari's blast past you shouting profanities at you to keep up or go away, well, some people choose to get a little petulant.

    Newspapers are dying a slow death because they DESERVE to die a slow death.