March 07, 2006
3/7: The Iran Giant
Just when things start to calm down, something else always comes up. In recent weeks it's been VP Cheney's hunting accident, the Dubai port deal, the Samarra mosque bombing, and the AP's Katrina videos. Today it's an ABC News report that cites U.S. authorities saying Iran are sending bombs into Iraq to be used against the U.S. and Iraqi forces. Even though that's the biggest story, it's followed closely by other stories. Regarding Iraq itself, debate continues to rage over whether Iraq is in a "civil war" or not. The argument looks quite a bit like the one over whether Iraq is a "quagmire." That debate has never been properly resolved, and unless things move dramatically one way or the other, this one probably has some legs, too. Meanwhile, the SCOTUS's ruling on gays in the military gets a great deal of attention, as does Gov. Mike Rounds' (R) decision to sign a bill banning nearly all abortions in SD. Plus, the The New York Times story on bloggers we mentioned yesterday is now out, the U.S. military has apparently banned Wonkette, the UNC-Chapel Hill attack continues to draw speculation, and we bring you our latest Blogger Spotlight.
IRAN: Has He Lost His Mind? Can He See Or Is He Blind? Can He Walk At All, Or If He Moves Will He Fall?
ABC News' Brian Ross reports, "U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border" -- bombs with "tell-tale manufacturing signatures ... indicating they are built by the same bomb factory." To the right-blogosphere, which gives the report a great deal of attention, it sounds like war. To the left-blogosphere, ABC's report sounds suspect.
Conservative Patterico's Pontifications: "Skeptical? I was cautiously skeptical myself. But even [ex-WH counterterrorism adviser/Bush critic] Richard Clarke is convinced." More: "The phrase 'Richard Clarke, Bush Administration shill' doesn't have the ring of truth ... which strongly suggests there is something to this. It feels like an act of war to me." Dave Price at Dean's World tends to agree: "I don't know what else you could call this, if it's true." 
Confederate Yankee: "I am not a legal expert, but I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war."
Header at Captain's Quarters: "Iran Gives US A Casus Belli, If We Want It." Riehl World View wants it, heading a post: "It's Time For War With Iran." More: "The reality is that a state of war between the US and Iran already exists. Unfortunately, for too long now, only one side has been fighting." Kobayashi Maru considers a 2/17 NRO column by AEI's Michael Ledeen suggesting that Iran is looking ahead to something happening on 4/8, and suspects "something military is going to go down vis a vis Iran before the end of March." The Sundries Shack is not surprised, but less sure it will mean war: "Looks like the Mullahs finally got caught red-handed. Despite my desire that we let a few Tomahawks fly, I don't think you'll be seeing any sort of military action against Iran, though. Thanks to the Quisling Democrats and their persistent drive to destroy the Bush presidency, it's going to be painfully easy to cast doubt on this discovery."
Conservative Hyscience writes, "One would think that by now, even the Islamo-appeasers such as the liberal left, their media, and their academe would have recognized the global threat of radical Islam and their obsession to rule the world. But if they haven't got it by now, why don't they open their ears to the words of the Islamists themselves" -- he links to a Russian news source quoting Ahmadinejad as saying: "The world will be in the hands of Islam over the next few years."
Power Line's Scott Johnson points out there were news stories in the New York Times, BBC and CNN "that anticipate the ABC report."
But liberal NewsHog points to the same BBC report as a reason why this story is "actually old news from way back in October last year": "Back then, the British media were full of the accusations that improved IED's using motion detectors as triggers were being sent to Iraq from Iran." But the story died when it was "discovered that the new, deadly IED's were using a British design that had been stupidly given to the IRA by British intelligence and then passed around various terror groups the IRA were allied with. Major egg on faces -- story dropped." AMERICAblog's John Aravosis remains skeptical as well: "You have got to be kidding. Suddenly after 3 years we conveniently find 'evidence' of Iran arming the Iraqi insurgents, only a mere weeks after Bush starts laying the groundwork for attacking Iran. Gee, how convenient is that. This is EXACTLY how they led us into Iraq under false pretenses." On the other hand, The Heretik includes it in a good-sized list of other things going wrong in Iraq.
Lefty Dadahead responds to CQ's "casus belli" post: "Putting aside the fact that the only evidence for the accusation is the assurances of U.S. officials, it should be kept in mind that the U.S. has been conducting reconnaissance missionsinside Iran for some time now, which itself could be seen as an act of war and thus a casus belli for Iran to attack the United States. But we all know that the U.S. plays by its own rules."
Another ABC News report, this one by Jake Tapper, quotes a ret. Army general asserting that the situation in Iraq is indeed a civil war.
AMERICAblog's Aravosis was skeptical of the Iran report, but not this one: "Well, I hope Bush and the Republicans are proud of what they've created. We are on the path of the worst case scenario of what could happen if Saddam were removed from power. A full blown civil war and the country falls apart. And before Bush tells us that no one could have predicted it, I learned about this scenario in graduate school." NRO's Stephen SpruiellNathan Goulding quotes ret. Army Maj. Gen. William Nash from Tapper's article saying: "We're in a civil war now; it's just that not everybody's joined in." And disputes the assertion: "Doesn't civil war require the participation of a large portion of the population? According to U.S. reports, several hundred people have been killed in post-mosque attacks. In December, 8.5 million Iraqis cast their votes in the elections." The Mahablog: "Good thing Bush wasn't president in 1861, huh?"
In 3 posts at Spot On -- see one, two, three -- ex-RedStater Josh Trevino reconsiders his support for the Iraq war: "The bombing of the Shi'a al Askari mosque in Samarra and its aftermath have altered the war there sufficiently so that we may now consider it a different war than that in which we were previously engaged." He sees 3 total wars -- against the Baathists, against the insurgents, and now the civil war. He concludes: "We went to Iraq for the best of reasons. I believe that. I believe the mission was moral and achievable one. But it is as I wrote: I was wrong to think that the Administration of George W. Bush was competent to act upon any of the given beliefs. As we look into the abyss, we are forced to remember that someone had to dig it."
Mohammed of Baghdad-based Iraq the Model shares a conversation with his father, who thinks the situation will "further escalate": "People find solutions only if they wanted to and I think many of the political players do not want a solution." At Political Animal, Kevin Drum focuses on what Mohammed's father thinks could cause that escalation: "Virtually anything... assassinating a leader, a fatwa, attack on a shrine like last time; we do not possess the institutions that can abolish the effects of severe sentimental reactions." Drum: "So even diehard supporters of the American invasion agree: a single new incident could touch off full-scale civil war in Iraq. Got it. Now, what are the odds there won't be another incident?"
Even before Drum's post went up, Washington Post was reporting that the top commander of the Iraqi army in Baghdad had been killed by insurgents. Other left-leaning bloggers picked up on it fast. Like plenty of other lefty bloggers, Anything They Say puts these latest developments alongside recent optimistic statements by JCS Peter Pace and Gen. George Casey. On 6/5, PTCruiser dismissed Pace's "Meet the Press" assessment thus: "Perhaps they've extended the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy to include hallucinogenic drug use." State of the Day files it under "Last Throes -- Update."
Jim Robbins at The Corner: "Some large Sunni tribes in have declared war on al Qaeda. The resistance, they say, should be an Iraqi-only affair. 'All those who offer shelter to terrorists will be treated like terrorists,' they add. Tell me again why the media thinks Zarqawi is making progress?"
Over the weekend, Power Line's John Hinderaker wrote a post titled "Is Murtha Nuts?", saying of Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) 3/5 "Face The Nation" apperance: "It's rather remarkable that a sitting United States Congressman would play so fast and loose with the facts, especially in the context of accusing [JCS Peter Pace] of being a liar. Pretty much every 'fact' that Murtha hysterically tossed out is wrong." Think Progress's Judd Legum writes: "Hinderaker then proceeds to 'fact check' Murtha's appearance, which for him seems to mean using words like 'absurd' and 'unbelievable.' But actually, it's Hinderaker who, with remarkable consistency, gets it wrong." It doesn't end there, of course. Riehl World View's Dan Riehl rebuts Legum's rebuttal of Hinderaker's rebuttal of Murtha, saying: "Sadly, either Judd at Think Progress can't read, or he's more likely intentionally manipulating his source materials in a fairly sad attempt at fisking Powerline." Meanwhile, Hinderaker himself responded: "One of the dimmest of the dimwitted left-wing web sites has tried to respond to this post. ... Sadly, I think a great many liberals are this stupid." And finally, for now, Legum responds: "In my experience, when you respond to criticism with a string of insults it usually means you have a really strong argument." He does credit Riehl World View for "a far more substantive rebuttal than Hinderaker."
The SCOTUS ruled unanimously 3/6 on Rumsfeld v. FAIR in support the Solomon Amendment, requiring Yale law and other schools to allow ROTC military recruiters on-campus or lose federal funding. Yale argued that Solomon prevented them from exercising their freedom of speech -- many schools object to the ban on gays serving in the military -- but the SCOTUS did not agree with that interpretation. SCOTUSblog goes in-depth: "Today's decision is much more in keeping with PruneYard (which it favorably cites) than with PG&E and Dale. Together with Johans, it shows that the Court is cutting back on some of the excesses of its compelled-speech doctrine."
Univ. WI-Madison law prof Ann Althouse is quite impressed: "I want to express my deepest thanks to Chief Justice [John] Roberts for gathering the Justices onto one clearly written opinion. There is no blather or hedging in the prose. He has obviously taken great pains to put every sentence in plain English. He deals with all the precedents, handling most of the cases in one or two crisp sentences. You may not appreciate how beautiful this thinking and writing is, but I do, and I think generations of law students will."
Left-leaning Publius of Legal Fiction generally agrees with Roberts (and Althouse), but dislikes the part where Roberts wrote: "Congress' power to regulate military recruiting under the Solomon Amendment is arguably greater because universities are free to decline the federal funds." Publius comments: "The idea is that attaching conditions to federal spending is less coercive than directly requiring people to act in a certain way. While I agree that this practice might be less coercive, it's still coercive." WSJ online columnist James Taranto: "Will any institution of higher education respond to the Rumsfeld ruling by declining to accept federal funds? The answer to that question will show us all how much those principles are worth."
Self-described gay conservative Andrew Sullivan agrees with the decision itself, but adds: "On the substantive matter, I appreciate the efforts of many in universities to highlight and expose the stupidity and bigotry of the military's ban on openly gay service members. But we are at war, and the gap between military and elite culture needs bridging, not widening. Let them recruit; and let others debate. And, for Pete's sake, let's change this dumb policy." Liberal Mustang Bobby concurs: "Aside from the shameful nature of this policy on its face, it has also hampered our actual war efforts. It makes you wonder what's more important to the Department of Defense: defending our nation or making a bunch of right-wing homophobes happy."
ROE V. WADE: Coming A-Rounds Again?
SD Gov. Mike Rounds (R) has now signed the legis. bill banning abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother; bloggers on the left make their opposition clear in no uncertain terms. Conservatives, even pro-life ones, are a bit more circumsepct.
Atrios: "It's time for more men to understand that getting rid of legal abortion increases by quite a lot the chance that one drunk evening will lead to 18 years of child support payments. Alternatively, it decreases the chance that they'll get laid." Jane Hamsher recalls Dem consultant Steve Elmendorf describing Dems as essentially an ATM, for which he got slammed (see 1/30 Blogometer): "These totals speak in a language so simple even Elmendorf can understand it -- if candidates want to harness our energy and our money, they better have their pro-choice credentials in order. [PA Dem candidate] Bob Casey need not apply." A commenter at Alas, a blog considers: "This strikes me as a really quandary for South Dakota doctors. Say you have a patient with eclampsia complicated by other factors (a heart condition, diabetes, etc.) How much can you cover your ass in terms of risking a felony conviction? On the other hand, if you wait it out and your patient dies when you could have intervened, can't you still be sued by the woman's parents or husband for malpractice?"
Conservative Ed Morrissey: "The anti-Roe activists are playing with fire; a loss at the Supreme Court could reinforce the precedent even further. However, it is clear that this battle will have to be fought at some point, and they're betting that this court will at least be open to the argument that Roe has no basis in law or constitution and should be voided. Let's hope the court can at least agree on that much." La Shawn Barber asks her readers to "Put on your thinking caps: 1) For 'pro-choice' readers, your assignment is to demonstrate how the Supreme Court will respond to Governor Rounds's challenge of Roe based on the decision itself and the Constitution. ... 2) For pro-life readers, based on Roe and the Constitution, lay out your argument supporting the ban on abortion and how you might defend it before the Supreme Court. Materials: Roe v. Wade and the Constitution." Martin's Musings: "What these laws will do, however, is magnify the public debate over the next two years and force Presidential candidates from both parties to take a stand. ... As a result, both Democrat and Republican voters will want an unambiguous abortion position from each candidate."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Babaro At The Gates
The New York Times report on blogs, PR and Wal-Mart by Michael Barbaro we mentioned on 3/6 is now out, and it's a bit bigger of a story than yesterday. Barbaro starts by quoting conservative Brian Pickrell of Iowa Voice criticizing Wal-Mart critics, then adding: "It was the kind of pro-Wal-Mart comment the giant retailer might write itself. And, in fact, it did."
At Iowa Voice, Pickrell responds: "I think he's referring to this post. You can read all my Wal-Mart related postings by going to this category. You be the judge. As I explained in my previous posts, I get a ton of email from a bunch of different sources. If I run a post specifically using information contained within an email, I will say so (you can see numerous instances of this being the case). Likewise, if I quote somebody or something, it's in a quote box. That's how blogs work (apparently, he didn't understand that)." For what it's worth, if the sentence Barbaro quotes came from the PR agency or Wal-Mart, that sentence definitely is presented as Pickrell's own writing. Later, Pickrell adds: "ust to clarify, I did use the line in question at the beginning of the piece. That I don't deny. But one, I didn't get that from [Edelman's] Marshall Manson, that was forwarded to me from another blogger and two, it doesn't change the fact that he's trying to say, in effect, that I took what was given to me by Wal-Mart or its PR people and printed it. That is blatantly false." PunditGuy's Bill Nienhus is also mentioned and quoted in the article, and he follows up with his own defense/explanation. Marquette Warrior, another player, wasn't impressed with the piece: "It's not as grossly unfair as one might expect. But it makes way too much of a very few bloggers who simply cut and pasted from Marshall Manson's e-mails."
Conservative Don Luskin is less than impressed by the story: "What... so unions, and everybody else who tries to get the mainstream media to tell its story isn't doing exactly the same thing? And what... when the Times writes a story stimulated or influence by a PR flack, it's supposed to be disclosed? Of course not -- so what's different in this case -- that it's Wal-Mart (the evil Wal-Mart!) or that it's bloggers?" James Joyner is annoyed that although the Times links to Instapundit in the online version, it doesn't link to the post being criticized: "Who the hell is Brian Pickrell? What blog does he write? Where’s the link to those posts? (Twenty-one paragraphs into the piece, we learn that Pickrell is the author of Iowa Voice, but are not given his URL or links to any posts.)" There are links to at least the front page of blogs mentioned in the story in a sidebar, but not the posts in question.
Centrist Jeff Jarvis: "First, I suggest you read the story and substitute the name of your local newspaper for any reference to bloggers." He advises bloggers to mention the fact if they get some info from a PR agency, adding that they "will be way ahead of the press" if they do: "Reporters do not tell you about the meetings, lunches, drinks, and help given them by flacks." Lefty Duncan Black agrees: "Unless I'm missing something this New York Times article is just another stab at holding bloggers to ethical standards and practices which don't apply anywhere else in the universe. ... I'm not defending all astro turfing practices or its practitioners, and there are certainly ethical issues that can be raised. But 'Wal Mart PR guy reaches out to bloggers' just isn't much of a story. PR people reach out to me all the time. So what."
DEMOCRATS: Can Hillary-Hate Be Halted?
At MyDD, Chris Bowers admonishes many of the site's readers/commenters for what he sees as knee-jerk hatred of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "I am generally an optimist who believes that you can engage just about anyone online in a reasonable discussion. However, whenever I bring up Hillary, I honestly can't believe how many idiotic progressives there are who will clearly stop at nothing in order to assist the long-term Republican goal of making sure that no potential Democratic leader has a favorable image nationwide. I am absolutely flabbergasted by the level of stupidity and denial of reality who many progressive who trash Hillary Clinton in particular. ... I honestly think I am reading FreeRepublic sometimes when she comes up." Bowers says that while he personally wouldn't work for her in the primaries, he is afraid other Dems will become "exactly the same as DLC losers like From or Reed who happily repeat Republican lies about Howard Dean. If you can't recognize that, then you will do nothing but drag the progressive movement further down the festering rat-hole that we seem to perpetually find our electoral fortunes mired in. If you can't recognize that, I will also tell you, now that we are only eight months out from the start of the primary season, that I don't want you coming within several miles of making a comment or writing a diary on MyDD. This is one blog where Republican narratives will never be reified." 100+ comments follow, and quite a few disagree.
Centrist Joe Gandelman: A significant problem is that "there are several views of what the Democratic party should be" -- those on the left who want to "accentuate differences between the two parties so party members have a reason to get out and vote," and those in the middle who say Dems "must appeal more to the center to siphon off some disgruntled GOP votes and independents. ... The Democrats' two present dominant factions seem direct descendants of the old Vietnam-era George McGovern anti-war faction and Scoop Jackson support-the-war factions. Yet, even that explanation is too simplistic: polls show an increasing number of Americans are turning against the war. So perhaps this split will eventually morph into intra-party differences over defense issues in general." He concludes: "The GOP's biggest problem right now is the Bush administration's controversial policies and tepid and often incompetent performance; the Democrats' biggest problem right now seems to be themselves."
The Washington Post, like the New York Times a day earlier, has a story on the Dems' mixed situation heading into '06. Susie Madrak identifies part of the problem as Dems' poor marketing skills: "Liberals think marketing is beneath them, and 'yucky' unless it's wrapped in a doctoral thesis. They've forgotten how to talk to civilians (that is to say, non-wonks) and it's beneath them to learn. You know what I noticed about [George] Lakoff's book ["Don't Think of an Elephant"]? He identifies the problem, but the replacement slogans he comes up with simply suck."
TERRORISM: Isn't He Obviously A Closet Dukie?
Right-leaning bloggers continue to debate the case of UNC-Chapel Hill grad Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-born Muslim, who plowed an SUV into a crowd on the campus last week (see 3/6 Blogometer). Is it terrorism? Some say yes, some say no, and others aren't sure.
Athena at Terrorism Unveiled visited the campus to do some on-the-scene reporting: "After speaking with someone who knew Taheri-Azar, a little bit more interesting details come into view. The guy I spoke with said Taheri-azar pledged his fraternity, Sig Ep, and that the frat "blackballed" him, meaning kicked him out because he was such a recluse and antisocial. ... To me, his behavior pattern squares with empirical evidence (see Sageman) of the path other jihadists have taken. Social misfit, not extremely poor, well-educated, and a past involving drinking and drugs. ... Taheri-azar isn't a big deal because he planned and executed poorly, but he does make us ask 'what if?'" -- Chapel Hill prof Cori Dauber: "My position is that one sentence does not constitute sufficient evidence, that we need to know more, that we need more evidence regarding motive. You know, we seem to have gotten a bit more evidence regarding motive" -- she links to a WRAL report where Taheri-azar said he wanted to "punish the government of the United States for [its] actions around the world" -- and Dauber adds: "I would have to say the scales are starting to tip in a particular direction."
Andrew Cochran at The Counterterrorism Blog takes a counter position: "The cable news networks and some of my favorites blogs are in danger of trivializing real terrorism by trumpeting the case of the University of North Carolina graduate student from Iran, who tried to run down students to 'avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world.'" And emphatically adds, "no real terrorist turns himself in on a 911 emergency call!!!"
Either way, Mary Katherine Ham calls it a "very big story": "Attempted murder with an SUV on a popular campus quad is a big story even if it's not a terrorist act. Why's everyone being so quiet about this one? It was not mentioned during TV coverage of the UNC/Duke game Saturday night (carried on EVERY SINGLE ESPN channel), despite the fact that it happened just the day before."
NAM's Pat Cleary gives a shout out to UnionFacts.com -- "they are like a terrier with a bone when it comes to the AFL-CIO." He notes that the AFL-CIO held their mid-winter meeting at a hotel in San Diego involved in a labor dispute: "Apparently the Carpenter's Union has a running dispute with the Del Coronado, so the UnionFacts sleuths saw the picket line, and a hotel full of union chiefs. Hmmmm.... You don't think they ignored the picket line, do you? Can you say, 'double standard'? So much for solidarity."
At TPMCafe, labor consultant Frank Joyce focuses on UnionFacts.com founder Richard Berman, whom Business Week recently called "kind of like a Michael Moore for businessmen." Joyce concedes Berman's launch gimmick -- a giant inflatable dinosaur outside the AFL-CIO's DC HQ -- was "kind of clever," but argues Berman has ulterior motives: "If unions are extinct, how could anyone raise one nickel to fight them? ... Berman is a stone cold hustler and con man. When it comes to unions, a lot of employers do think like three year olds. So, for the combination of money and sport that Berman seems to like, there are plenty of suckers out there for the taking."
PENTAGON: The Republican Guard
Wonkette updates on a previous post, which cited a reader saying that the Marines blocked access to the gossip site. "The hyperbolic Call to Arms tone of the original post was just that -- hyperbole. We even got emails from US Military spokespeople kindly explaining that soldiers and marines are allowed to check their email ... and we were going to tell everyone to calm down, etc. etc." But the original e-mailer writes back, listing sites that are banned and those that aren't. Banned: Wonkette, Air America, Al Franken, and the Don & Mike Show. OK: Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, ABC's The Note, and G. Gordon Liddy. "And, uh, now we're just a wee bit suspicious. And even more upset than before, actually -- they're making them read the goddam Note? No f----- wonder 72% of 'em want to get the hell out of there." Daily Kos' Hunter: "Quite the standards, there. Color me shocked that they're allowing Republicans to use uniformed troops as props at campaign events, in direct and unambiguous violation of military rules."
MIDTERMS: Have You Polled A Ford Lately?
At RedState, Memphis-based J.A. Davis lists Rep. Harold Ford's (D-TN) negatives as "He's a Democrat," "He's from Memphis" and "He's the biggest star from a notoriously corrupt political family." He adds: "I believe Ford is an honest man who has been dealt a bad hand of cards. What is worse is that he's not playing them well either. He's giving up a free, unopposed House seat for nothing." More: "Tennessee will remain in the GOP column, and Ford will need to look for a job. I suggest he run for Mayor of Memphis in 2007. Mayor [Willie] Herenton is wildly unpopular and was elected when I was in the fifth grade (1991)." Looking at the Rasmussen poll showing losing to all 3 SEN GOPers, Alexander McClure at Polipundit bets: "It looks like the GOP will have little trouble holding the open Senate seat in Tennessee."
Josh Marshall notes that MZM pres. Mitchell Wade -- a key figure in the Jack Abramoff scandals and now a problem for FL SEN candidate/Rep. Katherine Harris (R) -- "was also the registered agent for something called the 'Iranian Democratization Foundation.' The date of registration was in April 2004 and it's now 'dissolved.' What's it all about? Your guess is as good as ours. But we're looking into it."
Today the Blogometer talks to liberal Matt Stoller, who contributes to MyDD. In '05 he ran the official blog for Gov. Jon Corzine's (D-NJ) campaign.
What is your full name?
Matt Stoller
What is your age?
28
Where did you grow up?
Miami, FL
Where do you live now?
DC
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
I am a full-time blogger in DC. I have worked for both campaigns and in the traditional media.
When did you start blogging and why?
I started in 2002 because I was bored at work and increasingly angry about politics.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
I enjoyed writing about the conventions.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
I write when I have something to say. That often means one or two posts a day, but it could be more or less depending on whether I have anything to add about the political environment.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
Political blogger: Digby. Non-political blogger: Go Fug Yourself.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Paul Krugman
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
"The Colbert Report"
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
I like the Inside Edge from PoliticsNJ, the Hotline blog, The Fix from the Washington Post.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Atrios, Daily Kos, Firedoglake, Digby, Political Wire.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
Once every couple of weeks.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
Well I'm not sure, because a lot depends on the funding streams. Getting good information is expensive. It just is, ask any scientist. Getting entertaining opinion is cheap. Yet the system compensates based on smooth bland opinionating, and so that's what is prioritized. It would be easy to say that there are two parallel systems, one that is MSM and one that is blogs, and they are fighting or they are complementary. The reality is that this analysis is facile and does not hold up. It's unfair to journalists and bloggers who spend their time digging up good information, and it's unfair to the punditocracy who are left accountable to nothing except cocktail party gossip and a royal courtier mentality.
Ultimately how media develops is a political question, not one of markets or business. As far as I can tell, neither Fox News nor MSNBC is profitable (cash flow positive, possibly, but neither has recouped initial investments). So there's a logic to their existence that goes beyond the 'free market'. There's no accountability there as far as I can tell, and that was true before blogs.
Do Tim Russert and Chris Matthews take massive speaking fees from trade associations? Do journalists/pundits/bloggers still aspire to eschew genuine expertise in favor of appearing on television? Is there a revenue model for local blogging? I don't know the answer to any of these questions. It just seems to me that there's a payola/accountability issue here that is largely unexplored because in one form or another, exploring it threatens the livelihood of those around you. Whether we address these important questions over the next five years will largely determine what happens to both internet and non-internet based media. A media system is only as honest as its moral underpinning and commitment to accountability.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not To Be Controversial Or Anything, But Let's Talk Race, Religion And Politics
A forthcoming article by Washington Monthly's Amy Sullivan on how Dems might attract more evangelical Christians, "When Would Jesus Bolt?" is already getting attention from the left and right. At Crooked Timber, Kieran Healy writes: "First, when political commentators talk about wooing the evangelical or conservative Christian base, they typically mean -- but do not say -- that they're talking about white conservatives. African-American Christians may look similar on theological issues like the veracity of the Bible, but they vote Democratic." He posts data (from an also-forthcoming book) showing the voting tendencies according to race and religion, pointing out: "African-Americans with conservative views on the Bible are more likely to vote Democratic than those who think it's just a bunch of stories." And he adds, "while it's clear that white conservative Christians lean heavily towards Republicans, the swing in some cases isn't as large as you would think. More than a third of white conservative christians who profess the literal truth of the Bible still vote Democratic."
LEST WE FORGET: Anvils For Dinner
Looking a bit like Tony Millionaire and feeling a bit like Max Cannon, we note the apperance of a new surrealist web comic, Married to the Sea, by the married creators of Toothpaste for Dinner and Natalie Dee. For the couple weeks it's been up, we've really liked goat fight and anvils for christmas -- but you can't go wrong with today's word up.
Posted by at March 7, 2006 12:33 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.
