Monday, December 04, 2006

Clueless -- and built to stay that way

The Mainstream hears our footsteps. They are jealous of us -- of our editor-free process, of our unsullied passion, of our nimbleness and outrage. Thus their pathetic, clueless attempts at cartoon villain "We're not so different, you and I" takedowns, like this one:

New on the Web: Politics as Usual - New York Times

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.

Over the past few years, bloggers have won millions of fans by speaking truth to power — even the powers in their own parties — and presenting a fresh, outsider perspective. They are the pamphleteers of the 21st century, revolutionary “citizen journalists” motivated by personal idealism and an unwavering confidence that they can reform American politics.

But this 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.

After the Virginia Democratic primary, for instance, James Webb hired two of the bloggers who had pushed to get him into the race. The Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont in Connecticut had at least four bloggers on his campaign team. Few of these bloggers shut down their “independent” sites after signing on with campaigns, and while most disclosed their campaign ties on their blogs, some — like Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits — did so only after being criticized by fellow bloggers.

Dear Wankers:

I was not granted a halo the instant I opened an account with Blogger. There are good bloggers and bad, ethical and not so much. What makes us an essential complement to (and often antidote to) the insipid, toothless product you are paid to line our birdcages with is not diminished if the same forces that have corrupted most of you have also corrupted some of us. The blogosphere matters because it is too diffuse and unruly and disorganized for it to matter if one of us tries to cook the books. The ability of any one blogger to corrupt another is vanishingly small. You are rigidly hierarchical, we are ad hoc; you are centralized, we are diffuse. You completely misunderstand the essential difference between us and you: it is the blogosphere as a whole that matters, not any individual blogger.

When Judith Miller put the New York Times into the tank in the runup to the Iraq war, the game was over -- the entire mainstream press fell into lockstep. In contrast, when Jason Leopold reported via Truthout that Karl Rove had been indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald, the blogosphere quickly jettisoned the story's credibility.

That points to our essential strength and thus your essential weakness. The voracious iconoclasm of (at least the left half of) the blogosphere is inherent and structural. We are like an ant colony, except that we require neither queens nor drones. You can stomp on a few of us, but the larger organism is unaffected. And unless you learn to coexist with us, you can expect to ruin your picnics for years to come.

Love,

Bluememe

P.S. Oh, and as made clear by the accompanying "graphic" (Wowser -- I guess we will have to stop calling you the Grey Lady now!) the one blogger you are able to point to who apparently hid his political work went on the payroll of Republican Saint John McCain.

Update: I crossposted this @ dKos. In response to a comment from coffeeinamrica, I realzied something I think may be more significant than the original post:

The other reason the MSM is stuck on "bloggers getting paid by pols" beef is not about the conflict issue -- it is, plain and simple, about the money. In their world, money is precisely equal to power. If they can keep us stuck in believing that purity equals poverty, they think they can keep us powerless.

Smarter than I thought, but still doomed to failure.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

what a fucking self-righteous loser you are. get a life. grow the fuck up. and learn to write you stupid fuck. and realize that Kos is a homo and he lost the campaign for ned lamont. you will NEVER be able to take on the mainstream media. they will pummel you

10:57 PM  
Blogger bluememe said...

Ah, such an eloquent refutation. I cower in shame while wondering who has struck me down with such icy expertise-- David Brooks? Judith Miller? (Three f-bombs in four sentences -- I'm guessing Queen of Iraq.)

What do you think, ye of the small bluememe circle -- should the previous comment remain as exemplar of wingnut perfection, or should I recycle those electrons and remove the comment?

7:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

…. what a fucking self-righteous loser you are…

Funny he should say that. While that turkey WAS WAY OVER THE TOP, and obviously has big-time problems himself, you do seem to belong to a bloggers club whose members feel ignored/overlooked/shat-upon/misunderstood/underappreciated and otherwise left out. While the others in that group may have earned those feelings, you should reassess your association with them because you do have (at least some of) the audience you deserve, you just need to be more aware of them. Try ESP or something, since they don't post much themselves. Of course you have many more associations than those whiny bloggers, but that particular one has been apparent recently. Not being a blogger myself, and not following all the sub-sub-sub threads of the small groups who talk to each other in endless posts, I am more and more often left wondering what a particular Bluememe post or post headline was about (e.g. "Press (off) regardless" and "Christian leader eats trees/shoots, leaves"). It doesn't seem right to have to Google the keywords in your post in order to understand it. It should be the case that, if a post is worth making, you will provide enough material for a casual follower to figure out the thrust of what you are saying, and often you do. Still, I have to say that, especially recently, you seem to have been talking to a different small coterie who presumably reads the same sources you do and is already up to speed on the issue of the day. Perhaps they are who you always thought you were talking to, but your readership is definitely wider than that and they know you can do better. What I really look forward to from you is illumination of subjects about which I was previously unaware. Of late, on more than one occasion that has not been the case. You were definitely writing about something, but I hadn't a clue.

Your first-comment admirer somehow managed to skip a few electroshock sessions, but we know how to cure that with drugs. Nevertheless, he might have been pointing at something else worth considering in your recent posts, as I have tried to describe above.

As far as deleting his ass, it's just my opinion, but let him stand as a rather uncogent but good example of what not to bother to post as a comment.

If you (collectively) are having the impact you feel you are, it is or will become self evident. You are not in fact dependent on the MSM to acknowledge anything about your existence. Impact IS impact. I think bloggers are influential, but perhaps in a different way than they imagine. Good mirrors which might reflect the nature of that influence, and don't depend on someone else holding the looking glass for you (the ones held by someone else are always from the funhouse) are damn difficult to find, and usually a waste of time to search for, but they CAN be created internally. Then they are very useful.

TA

9:50 AM  
Anonymous JollyRoger said...

"Get a life." That seems to be as common among the Chimpletons as "libs are helping the terrorists." It isn't so much their pathetic, child-level mudslinging that depresses me-rather, it's the fact that the whole damned bunch of them use the exact same terminologies. Like all of Chimpletonia only has about 50 brain cells to share among them. I really don't blame most of them for posting "anonymous" these days-if I was that stupid, I think I'd hide my identity too.

As far as the MENSA candidate's MSM observations, there are two facts that are irrefutable. Fact #1 is that MSM viewership, resdership, listening sudiences have gone down over the last decade or so, while blogger viewers have shot up, substantially, in the same period. Anyone who doesn't understand why is too stupid to educate.

7:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home




see web stats