November 10, 2005
11/10: Judge Judy
Judy Miller, a bête noir of the left since the start of the Iraq campaign, is out at the New York Times. While many in the left-blogosphere still hold out hope that Karl Rove gets indicted, Miller's long-anticipated departure is probably the next best thing.
While it would be incorrect to say Scooter Libby stepped down on account of the blogs, in Miller's case there's no question the blogosphere's chatter was a significant part of the Times' reaction, insofar as they're concerned with repairing the paper's reputation. There are no publicly named blog readers at the WH, but the New York Times makes no secret about taking blogs seriously: According to Nexis, blogs have made their way into nearly 500 stories in the New York Times in the past year alone. (At the Washington Post, about 430; at the Los Angeles Times, not quite 340). And few have disputed that the blogosphere has been a driving force in earlier media scandals -- such as the resignation of former Times editors Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd, following the Jayson Blair fiasco.
But that's not all -- other stories getting comment include the deadly suicide bombings in Jordan, which is certainly a big topic, as is a controversy about whether U.S. forces used "chemical weapons" in Fallujah. Other major stories are Pres. Bush's still-sinking approval rating, a bipartisan blogger letter to Congress, the thoughtful conclusion of the latest "plagiarism" allegation, a self-imposed setback for the GOP's ANWR plans, and our latest Blogger Spotlight.
And of all things, be on the lookout for a few odd couples: 2 OJ comparisons, 2 possible libel cases, 2 anonymous profs, and 2 "thorough debunkings," mostly with 1 cite each from the left and right.
MILLER: At Long Last! An End To Puns On "Hey Jude," "Punch And Judy," "Miller Time," And The One Heading Today's Edition ... Not That We're Giving Up On Puns
Coincident with Miller's announced retirement, the Times posted to its website a two letters, 1 from Miller to Keller, and from Keller to the staff. They immediately followed up with a Kit Seelye news report about its own activities. 
New York Observer's Media Mob added some additional reporting, including a phoner with Miller saying, "I'm really very satisfied with the agreement." Miller told the Observer that she planned to "take a little time off," pointing out it was "the time I was supposed to take before this 40-day nightmare began."
Seelye explains why the Times did not grant Miller a rebuttal "essay": "Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page, said, 'We don't use the Op-Ed page for back and forth between one part of the paper and another' -- but agreed to let her write the letter." Conservative Mark Coffey responds: "Of course not, Gail -- that would be like, oh, say, MoDo using her column to take a public shot at Miller... wait, bad example." More Seelye: "She said she regretted 'that I was not permitted to pursue answers' to questions about those intelligence failures." Left-leaning Gary Farber responded: "Well, O.J., now you're free to go out and find the real killers,"
and gives the memo a "Read The Rest Scale: 3.5 out of 5." (It's worth noting that QandO's McQ had applied the OJ reference to the case of ex-CBS News prod. Mary Mapes on 11/8; see 11/9 Blogometer.)
Joe Gandelman fisks the Seelye report; he quotes publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. saying: "We are grateful to Judy for her significant personal sacrifice to defend an important journalistic principle ... I respect her decision to retire from The Times and wish her well." Gandelman explains: That's corporate-speak for 'Thank the Lord that we've extracted ourselves from this inexorable political and journalistic tarpit!'"
TalkLeft: "Something I just noticed: The article at the Times website about Miller's departure from the paper is headlined, 'Reporter Agrees to Leave Paper.' That is a further slam to Miller in that it implies she was asked to leave and agreed. If the departure was her idea, wouldn't the headline simply read 'Reporter Leaves Paper'?"
Miller has posted her letter to her own site, along with previous correspondence and updates related to her involvement in Plamegate; Jeff Jarvis parenthetically jokes, "I told you she'd end up blogging." Firedoglake fisks the Miller letter, and counsels her on rehabilitating her career: "Some honest self-appraisal and a little candor would be a good start." The Minor Fall, The Major Lift rewrites Miller's letter more to the author's liking.
No More Mr. Nice Blog: "Wonder how soon it'll be before her paychecks are signed 'Rupert Murdoch.' And I wonder how soon she'll start trying to exact revenge against her former employer, a la Dick Morris -- and whose help she'll get when she does." Noting that Miller will be keynoting the Pajamas Media launch next week, James Joyner observes: "Well, she apparently has a career as a speaker at big blogger events."
To NRO's Media Blog, Rush and Molloy column which quotes a source saying "Keller got snowed by Wolfowitz" basically means "Bill Keller lied us into war! At least according to the same standard the paper's editorial board applies to George W. Bush." Arianna Huffington calls Miller's leaving "a great victory for the Times newsroom, the blogosphere, and journalism," and dismisses the "entanglement" issue: "Fine, Judy didn't screw Libby. Just the American public." She argues: "We are far more concerned about their political entanglement. The kind where agendas intertwine, and fiction gets massaged into fact. Far worse than sexual entanglements, political ones f--- with your head."
Michael Petrelis asks why New York Times public editor Byron Calame ran nothing on his pseudo-blog for 2 weeks, then posted an insubstantial reader e-mail about Alzheimer's and art therapy: "Surely there are other readers bringing issues of concern to Calame's attention, issues he could address either in his print column or through his web journal. Why the minimal output, Barney?"
TERRORISM: Amman-strous Day
Depending on your news source, between 55 and 67 people are reported killed in the trio of suicide bomb blasts at local franchises of Western hotels in Amman, Jordan. 300 are listed as injured. Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility, and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi in particular is suspected of organizing the attacks.
Conservative The Astute Blogger: "On September 25th, I predicted that the jihadoterrorists would SOON try to expand their attacks into Jordan. I said this because it is my belief that as we put more pressure on Zarqawi -- and Assad & Iran: THE TWO MAIN NATIONAL BACKERS OF JIHADOTERROR -- that they would get their jihadoproxies to try to widen the "battlefield" from the Sunni sections of Iraq and eastern/southeastern Afghanistan to Jordan and Israel." Firedoglake's ReddHedd and The Counterterrorism Blog's Andrew Cochran posted reports as they came in.
Captain's Quarters: "Haaretz reports that the lack of Israeli victims came from an eleventh-hour evacuation of Israelis from Amman hotels after a specific threat came to Jordanian intelligence ... This sounds quite peculiar to me, almost like the germination of an urban legend, but Haaretz has Jordanian intelligence escorting Israelis back to Israel." Liberal Needlenose, on the same: "This is weird. If the Israelis had specific intelligence about an attack on the hotels, why didn't they bother to share with with their Jordanian pals?" Later, Meryl Yourish updates to report the story is false: "Ha'aretz printed a rumor first, then published this article in response. Nice going, Ha'aretz, because, it's not like anti-Semites won't use the fact that an Israeli paper published this crap first as evidence that it's true."
Two Minute Offense relays a report from a CNBC prod., saying if the attack was al Qaeda, "US officials will have to think seriously about whether their anti-terror policies are effective." If terrorists are able to set off suicide bombs in Jordan, it must be George W. Bush and his policies which are at fault." TMO, on the media: "They aren't 'folks' like normal human beings. They are sick humanoid type creatures who suffer from a serious brain-destablizing affliction." The Anchoress adds: "It's official now. Everything bad that happens in the world is George Bush's fault. I mean... it's just stunning. They're not even pretending to try to hide their hate for this president."
PENTAGON: White Noise
On 11/8 and again on 11/9, the UK Independent published 2 stories reporting that the U.S. military "used chemical weapons" -- specifically, white phosphorous (WP) -- in a 11/04 firefight in Fallujah. The story originated with the Italian public broadcaster RAI.
Greg at The Talent Show: "If you've ever wanted to know why liberals like me occasionally seem anti-American, it's because of stories like the one below which are so f---ing heartbreaking, the only sane responses are to either explode with rage or cry your eyes out." Daily Kos' Hunter understates his objection: "I know, as well, that we do not drop 'chemical weapons' on Iraq. We may, in the course of fighting insurgents in civilian neighborhoods, drop 'incendiaries' or other airborne weaponry which may melt the skins off of children as an accidental side effect of illuminating their neighborhoods or melting the skins off their neighbors. In that this still can be classified as melting the skins off of children, I feel comfortable in stating that the United States should not condone the practice." Pandagon: "What's left to say about this administration? My final straw was snapped long ago."
Then on 11/9, libertarian-leaning UK blogger Scott Burgess questioned the assertion that victims' "clothes remain largely intact" while their "skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells." Burgess interviewed GlobalSecurity.org's John Pike, who disputed that the clothes/skin result was consistent with WP. Burgess also pointed out that the spokesperson for the group, ex-soldier Jeff Englehart, "unbeknownst to Independent readers," is an "antiwar activist." Meanwhile, Stockholm-based Michael Moynihan questioned Englehart's having left different interviewers with different impressions of whether he fought in the Fallujah operation. Instapundit calls Burgess' work a "pretty thorough debunking ... though it was pretty obviously bogus on its face."
Also 11/9, ex-LiveJournal developer Mark Kraft wrote in to Altercation with a 3/05 Field Artillery Magazine [PDF] story calling WP an "effective and versatile munition" sometimes used for "screening missions at two breeches and ... as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when [U.S. forces] could not get effects on them with HE," i.e. chemical high explosives. This appears to contradict the U.S. military's 12/04 statement that WP was used for "for illumination purposes." Balloon Juice's John Cole, himself ex-Army, writes: "As I have stated repeatedly, while WP has a number of uses, the primary one is illumination and marking. It has a number of different uses, but using WP is not illegal or somehow 'worse' than having an HE round dumped on your head (and I have had HE rounds dumped on my head -- well within 'danger close' in an accidental friendly fire incident), it is not a violation of international law, and no one is trying to hide anything."
BUSH: Avoided Like The Plague (Perhaps Even The Avian Flu)
DCCC's Stakeholder calls attention to Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) saying on "Imus" that he wouldn't want Bush to campaign in his CD "at this time." Right-libertarian Classical Values points out that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) is doing much the same: "Santorum's display of fear (if in fact that is what it is) reminds me of the way some Democrats shunned Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. As it turned out, the voters didn't much care. If anything, there was a pro-Clinton backlash." RightFaith invites other readers to join a Blogger's Rally for Bush, and creates a series of sidebar buttons, including that reads "I Still Support the President" and "Backing Bush Through 2008."
FRENCH RIOTS: Tout L'Ennui Dans Le Monde
Riots in France finally seem to be on the wane, but they're still a serious matter of discussion on the left and right.
Juan Cole addresses the riots, considering the in-between-ness of "Beur culture" in the urban outer suburbs of Paris, and the collective "ice cream headache" the riots must be causing the "dittoheads." His solution: "Recognizing that 'Frenchness' is not monochrome, that France is a tapestry of cultures and always has been, and that sometimes some threads of the tapestry need some extra attention if it is not to fray and come apart." A Fistful of Euros agrees with Cole about "multiculturalism, or the absence of it, in France." Atrios, too: "France's approach to multiculturalism and race is essentially that of Ward Connerly ... This is France's system. This is the conservative approach to race and society. This is what they've spent the last week mocking."
Belgravia Dispatch, on French pres. Jacques Chirac's low profile throughout the riots: "As for Chirac, someone pronounce him dead already, okay? The poor man has made Dick Cheney look like a brazen exhibitionist."
THE ALITO NOMINATION: On Guard About Vanguard
Sisyphus Shrugged considers the New York Times' coverage of SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito's Vanguard investment (see 10/31 and 11/1 Blogometers) "kind of disgraceful." Its header: "Democrats Press Court Designee Over Mutual Fund Case." Susie Madrak agrees. Across the 'sphere, conservative Pejman Yousefzadeh calls it a smear, and points readers to Baseball Crank's defense of Alito on these charges: "This is a shot-in-the-dark attempt to derail an impressive nominee on his way towards confirmation by the Senate. Let us hope (and work) to ensure that it does not become anything more than that."
BLOGS VS. THE FEC: Shays-Meehan And The Lettermen
On 11/7 Markos Moulitsas came out against campaign finance bill H.R. 4194, sponsored by Reps. Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA), "and only those two, as they honestly have no clue what they've gotten into. Their complete lack of understanding of this medium would be quaint and cute, for two old out-of-touch luddites, if it didn't have such real-world repercussions."
Now Moulitsas and Mike Krempasky have sent a letter (posted as a PDF at Krempasky's RedState) to the FEC explaining their opposition. Among other issues, the bill "offers no guidance as to the treatment of group political activity, potentially treating all group websites that discuss federal candidates as political committees, with voluminous filing and disclosure requirements, so long as members spent $1000 on server and other costs, an easily-reached amount." They quote FEC commish Michael Toner, who is in their corner, and urge passage of Rep. Jeb Hensarling's (R-TX) recently defeated H.R. 1606 (see 11/2 and 11/3 Blogometers). Krempasky explains in a post this a.m., and there's more at the Krempasky-Moulitsas (and others) site, The Online Coalition.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Scheer Madness
On 11/4, L.A. Observed reported as "chatter" the likelihood that the Los Angeles Times would drop Robert Scheer's column; in an 11/8 radio appearance, Scheer confirmed it. Conservatives are pleased: Presto Pundit: "Scheer has got to be the most dishonest man in newspaper journalism. The big question -- why did this take so long?" Patterico: "Maybe things really are turning around there." But liberal Marc Cooper writes that while Scheer sometimes "infuriated" him, Scheer is "unique and unconventional," has a wide following, and is local: "The Kinsley Experiment was an embarrassing failure, but what has been the follow-up? Open the editorial pages and find that the mighty L.A. Times still can't get it together to scare up three or four locally based columnists to project a persuasive institutional voice. Instead, a plethora of weary out-of-town wonks continues to relentlessly wank on unimpeded." L.A. Observed's Kevin Roderick adds: "I've also been copied on a few emails sent to the Times from longtime readers who say if Scheer goes they are canceling."
Meanwhile, L.A.-based Joe Scott notices the "front page, three-byline, headline" treatment actor/possible GOV candidate Warren Beatty got from the Los Angeles Times: "I don't know whether the prominent placement was to assuage angry liberals, concerned that the paper is dropping iconic left-wing columnist [Scheer], or give the small gaggle of churlish conservative activists another chance to nip at the Times' heels." Regardless, he points out: "On election night, Beatty and [Annette] Bening got more media attention than the governor in his concession speech."
ELECTION '05: LAT Just Can't Catch A Break
Sacramento Bee's veteran blogger Dan Weintraub [reg. req.] posts a chart, which shows the results of each polling outfit's accuracy in the '05 elections: Field Poll fared the best, SurveyUSA came second, and L.A. Times came last. Kos points out, "As for the two biggest races of the night, SUSA had the best numbers in Virginia, while that Monmouth poll wins the prize in New Jersey."
ENERGY: ANWR Just Not Gonna Do This Right Now
Late last p.m., House GOPers dropped ANWR from a budget bill, reports the AP, on account of fears the "hotly contested" amendment would sink the entire bill. Conservative Generation Why?: "Don't know if those guys in Congress are just victims of our failing public school system, but I wish somebody would remind them that having more representatives than the other guys means you're IN THE MAJORITY." Liberal Just a Bump in the Beltway: "Now that's what happens when you present an unified front and can then negotiate from a position of strength to get reluctant members of the majority party to work with you." Oliver Willis: "For a heck of a fun time, check out this thread on Free Republic. The inmates are not happy inside the conservative asylum."
HACKETT VS. BROWN: Author, Author!
On 11/8 we pointed out a minor controversy, wherein Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) had used text from a post by labor blogger Nathan Newman; the Cleveland Plain Dealer had called it plagiarism, the Brown office copped to the charge, and then Newman returned from his "mini-honeymoon" to say he had hoped somebody would use his writing. We pick up the story:
On 11/8, the AP reported Newman's side of the story, with him saying: "They had an explicit right to print it without attribution. The point was the substance, not my prose and I'm glad [Brown] used it." Conservative Pardon My English: "This is all very philanthropic of Newman, and I, like Newman, enjoy writing about politics enough that I do it for free. But on those occasions when someone wants to use something I've written, I appreciate it when they bother to ask first -- it's the respectable thing to do."
On 11/9, the Plain Dealer editorialized: "Brown's staff has fallen on the sword for him, claiming all responsibility for the paper placed on the boss's desk. And blogger Newman is incensed that The Plain Dealer even cares where the language came from. But we do -- and voters should, too. Here's why: We need to know who is speaking. Is it a responsible, elected public official, or an Internet dilettante? Or is theirs a seamless relationship that makes a vote for Brown a vote for nathannewman.org or the Daily Kos? In their minds, does it make a difference? In ours, it does." Liberal YenZenta asks if the Plain Dealer is guilty of libel: "The Cleveland Plain Dealer has now referred to Newman as an "internet dilettante" in a new editorial. I don't know if that rises to the level of libel, but it certainly gives a false, misleading and demeaning picture of Nathan Newman."
Early on 10/10, Nathan Newman himself addressed the situation again, albeit from a theoretical perspective -- considering "how the law treats collective production of knowledge" and the elusive "search for the singular 'author.'"
BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: The New New School
On 11/1, the anonymous Bitch Ph.D. had "done a li'l reading, participated in a conference call, done some thinking," and decided that Alito was worth using the filibuster on, listing 10 reasons why. In the comments, conservative Paul Deignan of Info Theory posted a pair of long posts lambasting her analysis. He was instantly labeled a troll, and his identity as a Perdue Ph.D. candidate became an issue -- as eventually did hers, as an anonymous profblogger. Deignan and Bitch Ph.D. argued the details, the commenters returned glib retorts, and Godwin's Law was violated at least once.
Deignan later received, and on 11/2 posted to his blog, an e-mail from:
Wallace Hettle
Actual Professor
Google Me
University of Northern Iowa
Hettle issued a stern warning about Deignan's "trolling" on the message board, and announced his intention to speak with Deignan's advisers: "You are a lunatic; the academy is no place for you. You also seem to be a homely and I assume lonely man. Anyway, I'd advise you not to troll under your real name. Academia, like the Internet, is a small place." The 2 traded multiple e-mails, which Deignan subsequently added to his post. By 11/3, Deignan concluded that Hettle had libeled him, and wrote: "I call on Professor Wallace Hettle to issue a public apology. Until then, this thread is open for legal opinions on the case for libel." In an undated update, he adds: "Still, no retraction and apology, so the lawsuit goes ahead full steam. The attorney has already been solicited (and the firm is very successful in these internet cases). Note that blog publisher and [popular comment function provider] Haloscan are US companies so I believe the tort can be tried in US courts."
Self-described classical liberal Dean Esmay assessed the situation: "Paul Deignan is being subjected to what seems to be a surprisingly common tactic of people in academia: they don't like his opinions, so they're attempting to get him in trouble with his academic advisors. What's particularly jaw-dropping is that if you just read the discussion he was partaking in, Paul was at no time anything other than civil and rational." Beth at conservative My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy wrote: "The Bitch (hey, that's what
she calls herself) banned him -- although he was simply (and politely) debating her points. (Couldn't handle having your point of view challenged?)"
On 11/7, lefty academic P.Z. Myers of Pharyngula delivered a different dissertation: "This little pimple rather pompously trolled Bitch Ph.D., and one commenter ('Wally') sent an email to his advisors, and Dr B chopped out some of his comments and banned him. His response? He's trying to puzzle out Dr B's identity so he can reveal it and use it in his lawsuit against Wally. That's right. Lawsuit. Over blogging." Myers also fisked Deignan's explanation of why the issue was worth a lawsuit.
The same day, Bitch Ph.D. discussed her role in the "shitstorm." She defended her dismissal of Deignan's comments: "In contrast to my brilliant critics, at least my logic skills enable me to distinguish between an unsupported inference and an actual argument." And to those who hold her up as "'proof' that lefty professors are totalitarian in the classroom," she points out, "a classroom is not a blog: so that even if this blog did censor comments that disagree with its arguments, that constitutes precisely zero evidence as to my behavior in the classroom." She also derides a comment by Deignan that he would seek out and publish her identity.
Onetime academic Jeff Goldstein posted phone numbers and encouraged readers to write to the Univ. of Northern IA's History Dept., including the chair, Dr Robert Martin. English prof Thersites of Metacomments heads a post "Those Oppressed Conservatives," declaring: "Noted unfunny asshole Jeff Goldstein has revved up the wingnut whine machine on behalf of, well, a crazy person." Goldstein added in an update: "I don't hold Bitch Ph.D. responsible in any way for the comments made by Wally Hettle. I also don't think Paul should be trying to out her identity. My beef has always been with Hettle's actions..."
By 11/9, liberal Unfogged declared: "I find myself weirdly obsessed with the Ballad of Paul Deignan -- as if I'm entitled to a whiz-bang fictional ending in which all loose ends are tied up (a sitemeter-driven experiment? genuine lunacy? pursuit of justice?) and the plot resolved (Paul's father -- is he really Darth Vader?). At the same time I'm completely tired of talking about this." Meanwhile, right-leaning Scribal Terror coined the word "hettling" -- "to tattle in a harassing or hateful manner."
On a marginally related point, Deignan's question about Bitch Ph.D.'s identity is very similar to that of anonymous Volokh Conspiracy contributor Juan Non-Volokh, whose identity has been most seeked by UT-Austin law prof Brian Leiter (see 6/23 and 6/27 Blogometers).
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: I Feel Pritsky, Oh So Pritsky And Witsky And Bright!
Today the Blogometer talks to lefty NTodd, who writes Dohiyi Mir.
What is your full name?
N. Todd Pritsky
What is your age?
36
Where did you grow up?
Perrysburg, OH, a suburb of Toledo (where Saturday night "is like being nowhere at all").
Where do you live now?
East Bumf---, er... I mean, Fletcher, Vermont. That's about 30 miles north (and a bit east) of Burlington, not too far from the Canadian border.
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
For 14 years I've been working for a small telecommunications training firm in Colchester, VT. In that time I've worn many hats: graphic illustrator, network admin, Senior instructor, Director of E-learning. This year I switched to a 1/4 time role so I can teach at Champlain College and start a photography business.
I have never worked on a political campaign, nor for the MSM (unless you count delivering the Toledo Blade when I was a kid!).
When did you start blogging and why?
I started actively blogging on June 14, 2003 -- a rainy Saturday, and I was doing laundry at home in between road trips.
The why is rather simple: I was tired of yelling at the TV. I hated the rah-rah war stuff, had my own ideas, and wanted to express them. I never thought anybody would actually read the damned thing, so originally it was just a form of catharsis.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
My favorite post is actually one on my old site (before I moved to Typepad) that I wrote in the wake of Saddam Hussein's capture: "Queer Eye For The Deposed Guy". It was the first thing I'd written that ever got attention in the mainstream press. My blog has certainly evolved in the intervening years -- moving to Typepad, doing more photography, adding podcasting, etc -- but I still think fondly of that piece.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
Oh, it's catch as catch can, really. I often get asked how I find time to blog. My answer: Insomnia. Okay, that's only partially true. I do find that sometimes when I can't sleep I'll go on a blogging tear, but usually if I'm not teaching I'll take blogging breaks throughout the day, especially if I get a bug up my ass. So my output varies from non-existant to obsessive -- on average I guess that means it (not the blogger himself) is "healthy."
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
It's funny, but I don't actually have a favorite political blogger per se. My favorite political BLOG is Eschaton, and I go there for the community, not for Atrios. Heck, since he's hit the big time he doesn't do as much of the writing that originally drew me to his site so long ago (which is totally okay -- I still think he provides a good voice). I go there to hear what everybody else has to say. And to blogwhore!
As for favorite non-political stuff, I like Bruce Schneier's security blog, since that's related to my work, and I like an award-winning local group blog I belong to, which is run by my friend Bill.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
The Shrill One and Joe Galloway.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
I don't watch television news. I think it all sucks major ass.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
Burlington Free Press, Washington Post, New York Times (though I won't be paying them to read Krugman, the silly old media fools), BBC News, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, National Review, Stars and Stripes (well, maybe that doesn't count as MSM).
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Eschaton, Daily Kos, Washington Monthly, Dependable Renegade, First Draft, Lunaville, Candleblog.
I also check out a few others quite regularly, though not every day: Hubris, The Politburo Diktat, Michelle Malkin, Michael Berube. And I meander through blogs run by members of The Liberal Coalition.
There are myriad blogs I really should visit more often -- I used to do "blogarounds", but I've been too lazy of late. Others I visit when there's a particular story that I know is right up their alley (e.g., Brad DeLong's site when I want to get some economic analysis).
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
I read the above-the-fold stuff on the front page in a rack by the checkout counter at the Steeple Market in Fairfax when I'm picking something up. That's it.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
I think the world envisioned in EPIC 2014 is probably part of it, though perhaps a bit over the top.
The comparisons to "samizdat" publishing and Tom Paine are pretty apt, but I don't think blogs are all that revolutionary -- I don't buy into the hype. I do see them as another channel of news gathering, analysis and part of the political discourse. More importantly, I think the blogosphere is a democratizing medium, and one that simply augments other forms of exchanging ideas that have previously existed.
Radio didn't displace print. TV didn't displace radio. Cable didn't displace network TV. I don't think blogs will displace any of them. I'm sure, however, that blogging (and podcasting to a lesser extent) have influenced, and will continue to influence, the further evolution of those media. We've already seen blogs take on a sort of "fifth estate" role, watching over the MSM.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A History Of Political Violence
Poli sci grad student Brendan Nyhan considers the relationship between pres. approval ratings and the outcome of cong. midterm elections, with a couple of nifty charts and some interesting trivia. He writes: "just for fun, let's project the seat swing based on President Bush's current approval rating of approximately 40 percent. A naive model in which the relationship between presidential approval and seat swings remains constant over time projects that the Republicans will lose approximately 47 House seats in 2006. And under a few different specifications I've tested, the predicted loss is always at least 36 seats, and usually many more." Nyhan adds, "it seems like few people are taking the impact of Bush's approval ratings seriously enough right now. Presidents with approval ratings below fifty percent during a midterm election have gotten hammered" -- Johnson ('66), Ford ('74), Reagan ('82) and Clinton ('94).
LEST WE FORGET: Sticking It To The Man
At WuzzaDem, an overly excited and somewhat delusional Gov.-elect Jon Corzine (D-NJ) is interviewed by a stick figure.
Posted by at November 10, 2005 12:43 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
