I don't much like the 'intellectual' tag either. But that was the term Bowers used to describe the distinction. Thus the quotes. By the way, thanks for the contributions. They're much appreciated and little of this would have been possible without them. I think the words I'd use would be 'activist' vs. 'journalistic'.

What I find extremely strange but interesting is that I seem to think better at TPM than at DKos or MyDD. If you read my diares at DKos (all 4 of them, heh) or when I make serious comments at either of those sites they never come off as well as when I make them here even if the same ideas come from behind them. Often times I'll actually cross-post comments I first made here just because they are clearer and get my point across in much better ways. I'm not sure if this is a function of that little "edit" key on posts (I certainly use it a lot to clarify and fix grammar) or just a reflection of the types of strong policy discussions that abound around here. There are several comments that I am proud of at TPM, like my Power Theory and my recent attempt to explain "Fuck the South" because of how clearly I seem to have written them. I think that is directly related to the atmosphere of TPMCafe.

Hesiod and Counterspin may have been my first blog but TPM was my second after I knew what blogs were about. It's always had a bit of a special place in my heart. Anytime I get concerned that Josh isn't doing enough, I just think back to the Bamboolzepalooza of 2005. I honestly believe that had Josh not done what he did, a privatization bill would be signed by now.

If I may ramble a bit, I gained perspective from an unexpected, software-based exile from TPMcafe. While I didn't find a full substitute, it was interesting to look at some of the alternatives, blogs or not.

For example, I tried the History News Network at George Mason University, but found that almost any discussion degenerated into namecalling over Israel and related issues.

I've done better with mailing lists. One medical one in which I participate is rarely political, save that it will get into very, very specific discussions on things like major disaster preparedness, and ethical questions such as end of life and resource allocation (especially in disasters). That's a very international but unmoderated list, and it keeps an even keel. Some other medical lists are moderated and never go political.

I'm on a fairly small (30 or so) mostly military mailing list. I'd probably say that perhaps half support operations in Iraq -- many of whom have been there, are there now, or expect to be going back -- but it's an audience where I can disagree on policy terms rather than what soldiers do, and it gets into very serious discussion. There are some very good historians and social scientists there, either regular military or reserve components. Comments can be tempered when someone needs to vent about having to hose friends' blood out of a medical evacuation helicopter, or realize how close they came to pulling a trigger on what turned out to be civilians, or recovering from a very close call with a IED. This list also has the feature of not having anonymity, but also people being vouched for -- and yes, we've had a couple of impostors.

So, this has definitely been rambling, but I do find TPMcafe the best general spot for policy discussions. Sometimes, I'd like discussions to be more detailed, and there are topics I hesitate to bring up either because I expect them to bring up mostly flames, or that they are too specialized. Nevertheless, the site is unique in managing to keep a degree of civility in discussion about Israel, its neighbors, and US policy.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

My impression since you spun off TPMCafe, and then announced you were hiring some street reporters, is that your ultimate goal is to create a 1930s-style news empire in the new media: partisan, but with an underlying core of fact-based journalism values.

Seen from that perspective your actions, and the comparisions to e.g. Kos make more sense to me. Not sure if that is where you are really headed though.

sPh

I think I understand the point Josh is trying to make in distinguishing "activist" sites from "journalism" sites.  It's an important distinction to make, especially when it comes to assessing the relative credibility of information that comes from one kind of site or another.

But I have to say that I don't understand why Josh is so reluctant to call a spade a spade when it comes to defining what it means to be an activist site.  I mean, how can you reconcile this statement:

I can't be involved with particular candidates on an activist level and still be able to report on them -- or now have my reporters be able to report on them in the way I want to. The two just don't mix.

and this one:

that doesn't mean I think that bloggers who raise money for candidates are compromised in some way.

Of course they're compromised.  And not just in "some" way, but in a very big way.  For the reasons very clearly stated by Josh.  This doesn't mean activist sites are ethically compromised.  Far from it.  But they are compromised in terms of their ability to report objectively.  I understand that's not their primary mission, but nevertheless they do sometimes set themselves up to be sources of information.  All I'm saying is that they've got a credibility hurdle to overcome.

This site does, in many respects, what a responisble newspaper should do, and when a journalist loses his or her sense of outrage at being lied to--over, and over, and over again--then it's time to fold the tent. That is what has happened at many of the newspapers--perhaps because of cynicism, and perhaps because of the consolidation that has made the few remaining large chains beholden to the Federal government in one way or another. This trend also appears in cases of "wingnut welfare", where a bright, but otherwise unremakrable 20 year old is given a national platform to fawn over those in power simply by virtue of his mother's connections. In such an environment, there is no difference between journalism and activism.

When large news outlets do not report fairly, a market will spring up for news that is not filtered, and honestly done. Many of the sites that I read, such as atrios, firedoglake, unclaimed territory, but especially this one generally attempt to cover those in power critically. I don't always agree with folks about what the events -mean-, necessarily, but I am always grateful for the way in which TPM treats its readers with respect. That is activism, and it is terribly important (at least to me).

Two points:

1. There is an analogy to the print world. There are news publications like the NY Times and opinion publications like The Nation. The Nation does some original investigative reporting and the Times runs some opinion pieces, but everyone understands their primary focus. I don't think promoting a specific point of view is necessarily activist, it is more one of being an advocate.

2. Sites like dailyKos are now big enough that there are sub-communities. So Markos is an activist who supports individual candidates and tries to get them elected. Some participants do semi-investigative reporting (that is scouring the news outlets for overlooked items and trying to synthesize them into a story). The Trent Lott affair and the maccaca incidents were of this type. Then there are others who just post opinion diaries.

Josh is one of the few site owners who is trying to do traditional original reporting. The investigative techniques are the same as in traditional media, only the way of disseminating the information is new. So far this effort seems to be unique, but then so was I.F. Stone.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Howard,

First I should say, welcome back to TPMCafe.

Speaking of venting, since a certain amount of rambling is allowed at this site, I have long had an interest in military matters, and I appreciate the thoughtful answers you have given to my questions. I think that my perspective is probably not all that different from your own in some ways. I respect people who put their lives on the line, but from a personal perspective my thought about war is that enough is enough. Let me explain.

My earliest memory is a vague notion that not long ago people had been dropping bombs from airplanes, whatever that meant. One of the toys in my play set was a 50 caliber machine gun bullet that had come from a firing range in Texas. I used to play paratrooper, and I shudder to think about some of the jumps that I made. My uncle, for whom I had been named, had been a co-pilot on B17s, including the Schweinfurt raid, who bailed out two or three times and spent most of his war in a German POW camp. He returned from the war at 6'1" 90 lb. He married soon after. I am told, although I do not remember this, that when it was time to cut the wedding cake, he recoiled from the knife. He did not think that Hogan's Heroes was funny. When I was college age, he told me that if I really wanted to understand war, I should read Catch 22. I have read a bunch of books about B17s, but I have never been able to bring myself to read a book about POWs.

My other POW story is that one of my relatives contracted dysentery in a Yankee POW camp in Illinois. He had to walk back to his home in Kentucky and dropped dead 100 feet from his house.

Phillip Caputo wrote a book about Vietnam in which said that he volunteered thinking that war was like a John Wayne movie. I have never been under that delusion. People have said that Saving Private Ryan was a very realistic war movie. I know that is not true. When I was five or six years old I saw some war footage at Fort Sam Houston. I know what charred Japanese bodies look like. The scene that actually gave me nightmares was a long shot in a jungle clearing in which a young American soldier was lying on the ground with an exit wound in the middle of his forehead.

I am not anti-military, although I suspect that we spend too much money on our military, but from my knowledge of the subject, limited as it is to certain specific experiences, I conclude that there has to be a darned good reason to go to war. I suspect that you know what I mean.

I tend to agree with Josh on the "activistic" vs. "journalistic" distinction, particularly with respect to Kos (and friends) vs. TPM (and friends). I believe there is an "intellectual" component to the progressive blogosphere, however, filled by the likes of Glenn Greenwald, Digby, and Billmon (formerly).

These latter bloggers specialize in long, sprawling "think pieces" on the issues of the day. They make bold predictions or attempt to identify the deep undercurrents moving the news, often aided by professional backgrounds (Greenwald with the law, Billmon as a financial journalist). Billmon, for example, was predicting exactly what would happen in Iraq just two months after the fall of Baghdad in monsterous, 2,000-word blog entries. Greenwald, for his part, generates first generation legal arguments that, quite literally, find themselves being argued before the Supreme Court. 

While Josh will offer analysis at TPM, his predictions are generally tempered by the need for decent sourcing and a heightened desire for accuracy (e.g. the hallmarks of journalism).  Likewise, you can find plenty of analysis at Kos, but it always has an activistic feel to me...a distinct sense - to me at least - that what's really being analyzed are the political implications of the event rather than the event itself.  The Greenwald/Digby/Billmon "intellectuals" specialize in 1,000+ word analytical posts - which sets them apart from both the "activistic" and "journalistic" wings of the netroots.

My blog consumption tends to consist of the "journalistic" and "intellectual" hubs, probably because of my background in journalism and the law -- with healthy doses of Atrios and Americablog thrown in (both activist/journalist hybrids). At election time, I will drift over to the "activistic" wing at Kos and MyDD, but even this is largely a function of wanting fresh news -- since Bowers and Kos have such good election coverage.  It's just a matter or preference, however.  I love what Kos and MyDD do - I just happen to like different flavors. 

I'll close by saying that I think the distinctions and differences are what give the progressive netroots its vitality.  The older study Bowers linked to showed a lack of cross-over between the progressive hubs, but I think that's largely gone - insofar as I frequently see links to TPM-produced material on Kos, Dibgy, MyDD, and Greenwald.  Moreover, I think the various hubs allow people to do what they do best - whether that's organize and act, uncover and analyze news, or dig deep below the surface.  There's a healthy synergy that is fueled directly by the differences in the netroots.  And this is probably a good metaphor for the health of progressive politics in general.  

The authoratarian right is always going to have the organizational advantage because they will concentrate behind a single leader or movement and not deviate.   Progressives, on the other hand, will almost always have the intellectual/talent advantages of academia, the advanced professions, and independent thinkers.  The challenge for progressives is managing our independence and distrust of "movements." How do we take advantage of the many skills and talents of liberals without letting our differences foment conflict and dispute?  The liberal blogosphere seems to have figured it out...

It's an interesting distinction that Marshall is trying to make here, but I don't think it works. At this point in my experience with the political internets, I get most of my news from MyDD. I certainly don't come to tpmcafe for news, or even Marshall's original site anymore. I don't think there is a journalistic difference between the various sites.

This goes both ways too. If you think back to early 2005, Marshall's activism on social security helped doom Bush's plans.

I bet if you really looked into it, the difference between the two types of sites would be snobbery.

Chris Bowers mentioned Pandagon already, but I think really that's why so many group blogs exist. In there Pam is gay rights activism, while Amanda is my source for any intellectualizing about framing and feminism. Same goes for Matt Stoller's old BOPNews - Ian, Stirling, and Oldman gave me even more than Billmon, while Shaula and the other rotating crew plenty of great grassroots activism.

So in that kinda outer circle that revolves around Digby there are plenty of hybrids, many of whom, like Shakespeare's Sister and Pandagon, who Atrios and the like link to all the time, I guess in this context in recognition of the old divide.

Is Blog 2.0 too pretentious?

Actually, the real dichotomy in blogging is between blogs which write that "Rep. So-and-so recently said x, despite his previous statement which..." and blogs that write "F**k that guy!"

Objectivity in journalism ought to mean the ability for clear-eyed assessment, and to call bullshit on bad arguments and dubious assertions of fact.

But, in practice, it doesn't.

It becomes a a veil behind which reporters and editors and producers can hide. It's why CNN puts Glenn Beck on TV, or why any other number of people with, really, extreme positions on the right (call for the murder of judges, insist Democrats are allied with al Qaeda, etc) will continue to be given a perch from which to squawk. 

Hence, a myth. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I'm not sure that 'snobby' applies to a site where the proprietor posts pictures of his infant in an iPod shirt. Infants are inherently non-snobby.

You are right, marcf.

And when you say the Post "tries harder for objectivity" it simply means that the Post follows the rules of objective journalism more closely. The strive for accurate sources. They attempt to balance their stories. They attempt, in other words, to get at the truth.

Objectivity in journalism is nothing more than the scientific method applied to events.  It can be abused, but it's not a myth any more than truth itself is a myth.  It is a method.  If you discard that method, you have nothing but propaganda, superstition, and fantasy. 

Fox News attempts to disguise what it does as objective.  Just as Exxon tries to disguise its climate change propaganda as science.  They are manipulating the evidence rather than striving to present it objectively.  And this is why we don't like them.

If objectivity is a myth, then there is no difference between the overwhelming scientific consensus that says that global warming is real and Exxon's team of hacks.  But hey, that's just, like, my opinion.

Snob? I'd like to hear this one, too.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I don't think we disagree much; the idea that objectivity in the news media is fulfilled by presenting both sides is wrong; the idea that something else constitutes objectivity is not mythical.

I think where you get it wrong is to look to the leadership of the blogs to answer the question: What do blogs do? If the blogs are a bottom-up movement made possible by internet access to information and media, the people most likely to not have the best answer as to the significance of the blogs are the people at the top. I have immense respect for Chris, Markos and for you, Josh. But when you write this, my eyes roll up:

In fact, raising money -- even if Max is a bit dismissive of it -- is one of the most potent and important aspects of what the blogs have accomplished.

Maybe money is "one of the most potent" innovations of the blogs. But the much larger point is that the blogs have fostered the explosive growth of political participation the likes of which makes all precedents look virtually insignificant. Sure, money is a form of political participation. So are the YouTube videos that circulate. But to really make sense of the blogs you need to think much larger and much smaller at the same time. Blogs have fundamentally changed American political habits.

As a result of the blogs, Americans now understand politics in terms of a fundamentally different core set of habits. In that respect, donating money is not the newest innovation, but the most endangered form of politics in America. Many people still participate in politics by donating money--I would never suggest that donating money is dying. But it is fast being eclipsed by the idea that politics consists of conversation and debate.

All this means that the dividing line in the blogosphere should not be drawn between blogs with journalistic roots versus those with activist roots, but between those sites that foster and promote participation and those that do not.

TPM, for all its value, is not a site that promotes participation. It includes participation, but it does not value it above all else. TPM values what I would call expertise. This, too, is an important approach, but it is distinct from MyDD and Kos where participation is the primary objective--if not the mission itself. In fact, there is often a mistrust of expertise on those other sites if that expertise is not "homegrown." On TPM, reaching a certain point of recognizable expertise is the price of admission.

So money gets raised, sure. But more than that, Kos and MyDD shape a user experience marked by habitual interaction, whereas TPM fosters a type of experience more akin to traditional reading. (And I say this knowing full well that that I am writing a comment, but the comments here are more like LTEs than participatory threads. Great to read, but not interactive).

Bottom line: both of these approaches have their strengths and weaknesses--the unfiltered insight of MyDD and Kos can also bring knee-jerk insults; the edited expertise of TPM can also bring excessive cautiousness.

Personally, I tend to find myself spending more time with MyDD and Kos, but I value both approaches and look forward to changing the balance of my habits over the next year. If we are lucky, both approaches will continue to grow.

I am afraid I must disagree here. Subject matter experts /are/ the people that shoeleather reporters interview when they go into the field.

And I would seriously question that Jerome "doesn't scour original government or industry documents or interview political or business leaders". I don't know exactly what his day job is, but if it is tied up with financing energy projects at the venture capital level he had damn well _better_ be doing those things (unless he wants to be fired and sued).

I don't want to get hung up on that one example though. I see quite a few posts on "vituperative blogs" that demonstrate a depth of subject matter knowledge far deeper than anything I have ever seen from any shoeleather reporter. Keep in mind there are only so many traveling and interviewing hours in a day; in the end the shoeleather reporter is as dependent on what he reads (and Nexis) as the subject matter expert.

sPh

Ok, we're talking past each other a bit.

I do think there's a fine but important distinction between the cautious over-reliance on balance you see in the news sections of papers like the NY Times and Wapo - and the other problems you see in the corporate media. Beyond obvious cases like Judy Miller, the Times and WaPo are most often guilty of not taking risks with their reporting. They are generally following the objective method, but won't risk upsetting official Washington by taking risks. This is a problem, but is nothing compared to the problems of Fox News and, even worse, Infotainment.

Fox News blatantly disguises its coverage in the trappings of objectivity while taking essentially subjective stances on topics. They are liars. Liars, we can deal with. I think the bigger problem people are referring to is that of Infotainment. Someone like Wolf Blitzer packages his show to look like objective journalism as a form of entertainment - without really searching for the truth. This, in many ways, is more insidious than Fox News, since Wolf presumably believes that his watered-down version of events is objective journalism. Yet it consists of nothing more than presenting dualing opinions from an extremely narrow field of opposing actors. It is not journalism - it is reality tv. Improv. Theater.

Infotainment involves no soul searching. It involves virtually no risk taking. It doesn't involve a real search for the truth. It merely involves a performance designed to look like objective reporting. And because it is cheap and uncontroversial and easy to create, it replacing real journalism at every level.

One of the reasons I defend objective reporting so strenously is because it is disappearing so rapidly. And infotainment, far more than Fox News, is the biggest threat.

Okay, Josh -- late yesterday I posted a comment questioning the usefulness of "institutions" as a framework to examine the lasting impact of the netroots. Having read your post above and Bowers' reply, I'm now convinced it is is misleading in the way I outlined.

The netroots is neither "bifurcated" nor do hubs like dKos and TPM comprise emerging "institutions" in the sense that you use the term. The netroots is an ecosystem, and the fact that some hubs raise money or are led by journalists is far less important to understanding how it emerged --and less consequential to its potential to endure-- than the fact that these hubs share food sources, cross pollinate, develop symbiotic survival strategies, and replicate in the wild.

If we assess the netroots along this line of thinking, we will reach significantly different conclusions about what is most essential to achieving a lasting impact and what strategies to adopt --from content to food sources to alliances to niche markets.

As a result of the blogs, Americans now understand politics in terms of a fundamentally different core set of habits.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Would I be paraphrasing you correctly in suggesting you see the WaPo as bringing you relatively raw data, and the objectivity is in your own analysis? That's close to the way I operate, getting material from widely differing sources. Sometimes, when I feel especially masochistic, I can't listen to Fox anymore (I have a housemate that stays tuned), I go and read some revolutionary group's left-jargon filled document, and then go back to a reasonably professional think tank.

Depending on the sequence, lubrication with beverages containing caffeine, alcohol, or both may be in order. Irish coffee may be the ultimate in objectivity, or at least making one think one is objective.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You know, this gets complicated. First off, the fact that Markos tries to identify candidates who could benefit from netroots support, and tries to drive money to them, doesn't strike me as "compromised." He's stated his position, repeatedly, that he is a strategist and a tactician. In this way he is like Emmanuel--all he wants to do is convert Rs to Ds--and unlike Emmanuel, he wants those Ds whenever possible to support the caucus as much as possible.

But, and this is even more true over at mydd, accuracy and clear-headedness is absolutely essential when performing political analyses. myDD's poll analysis has to be performed as objectively as possible to be effective. Markos was downright pessimistic during the run-up to the midterms.

So, yes, Matt wants to see certain results from his poll analysis. But if he allows that desire to contaminate his analysis, his work is useless.

Likewise, when Markos reports on some issue--taking his most recent post Lieberman stabs Landrieu in the Back as an example--he has to construct a credible, objectively accurate argument.

So even though he does have a clear point of view--he hates Lieberman and the power he has in this 49-49-2 Senate--he cannot let that point of view contaminate his analysis, or he'll turn into a leftwing Jonah Goldberg.

Now that headline definitely has a slant, and his decision to write about this definitely represents a slanted view of news developments.

But if the story is accurate and well-documented (and, as I keep saying, kept honest by commenters and other bloggers), then there is no reason to doubt the reporting.

I think we basically agree, but use different terminology to express ourselves.

Just to comment on this last post, I see the infotainment factor -- Pierre Bourdieu described this as heteronomy,  the "trojan horse" which has seeped into journalism and turned it into a ratings game -- affecting even the Times (and maybe WaPo? I'm not a regular reader...). Didn't they recently run a frivolous article about Hillary and Bill's marriage? There are other examples as well. Yes, much less of a problem than Wolf Blitzer, but a problem.

The overall point I was trying to make here is that objectivity should not be supposed or assumed, certainly not at the expense of overlooking other, very real economic and political factors that help determine what news we receive.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

But something else has gone on here. It is now way too common for a news organization to forsake accuracy and objectivity for "balance."

It's not "objective" reporting to quote the president or the vice president saying something that is certainly untrue, and fail to note that the statement is in fact a lie.

The conservatives have insisted that the news they want to pay for isn't the truth. They want news that matches the world-view they believe in, even if that world-view is objectively false.

Now, it's tricky when the president and his minions lie all the time. The journalistic enterprise is ill-equipped to deal with the most quote-worthy people in the country lying on a routine basis. It's especially ill-equipped for dealing with an administration that doesn't merely lie, but also does things like suppressing stories, insisting on redaction of public information in an op-ed, modifying objectively constructed reports to reflect the administration's counter-factual world-view.

I'd argue, in fact, that the left blogosphere is doing a better job of objective reporting than are many MSM organizations. Take just as one example, the continued references to straight talking John McCain. It's certainly objectively the case that he is not engaging in nearly as much straight talk as he did in 2000, and that he has reversed core positions. The blogosphere is documenting this. Blitzer is still repeating the "straight talk" characterization.

Would I be paraphrasing you correctly in suggesting you see the WaPo as bringing you relatively raw data, and the objectivity is in your own analysis?

That's close to my position, but not exactly. I am maybe not as deep as all that. This is what I mean:

A TV producer has two soundbites. The first clip shows Mr. A claiming that Scooter Libby Dr. C has obstructed justice. The second has Ms. B attesting that the good doctor never lied to Federal investigators. Current standards of journalistic "objectivity" dictate that the producer air these two clips in the same news item, without comment. But if there is clear evidence that proves or very strongly indicates that Dr. C did, in fact, interfere with an on-going investigation, then those two pieces of tape should NOT be given equal weight. There should be a clear message contained in the segment that points out the discrepancy between Ms. B's statement and the known facts. This does not necessarily happen these days, especially when Mr. A is a lefty and Ms. B is a member of the Bush Administration and Dr. C is a former Chief of Staff to the Vice President.

Yes, equating objectivity with balance is a part of it. And your definition of objectivity, much like owenz, is more a method than a state of being. I wouldn't argue with that.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Let me put it differently, because I think this is an important issue.

We can tell good writing from bad, well-supported reasoning from incoherent reiteration of talking points.

One would like to think that there would be an equal amount of good writing (or good television reporting) from people from either point of view.

There are some examples of conservatives who do write or speak very well, and who ground their discussions in reality. The Belgravia Dispatch is an example from the web. William Buckley is an example of someone in meatspace. PJ O'Rourke and Tucker Carlson (yes, if you see him in some venue where he isn't playing a talking monkey on teevee) are also examples.

But, to a very large degree, there really seems to be a very big difference between the quality of writing and of reasoning on the right and left blogosphere.

The Michelle Malkins, Jonah Goldbergs, and their ilk simply don't make arguments or construct policy positions that can be defended very easily.

The reason I read DailyKos is not that it is ideological pure. It's true that the posters there seek out stories that promote democratic political victory, but those stories are well-written and well-grounded.

The reason I read discussions here and not at FreeRepublic is because the discussions here are grounded in reality and the commenters attempt to make coherent arguments written clearly.

I don't understand why this is. There are plenty of conservative ideas that are worth exploring, but we don't seem to see much of that, drowning in bizarre bits of culture wars that make absolutely no sense, ranging from stem cell research to abstinence only sex education, which do all seem to reflect fury at the dirty hippies who hate America.

And the ideas that are worth exploring--limited government, prudent fiscal policy, free trade and so forth--have not been on the table for a very long time.

I have just discovered this debate between the "journalistic" side of our movement and the "activistic" side. I have only entered a blog comment once or twice before, never here. I read blogs everyday at work [my home computer died] and I read them throughout the day. I have always been impressed with and proud of the several characteristics my side of the blogosphere [liberal, progressive, whatever] have always demonstrated, very careful documentation of their statements with real facts and their mind-blowing intelligence and deep understanding of the topics under discussion. However, I have never thought of them as more one thing rather than another, they are all, to my mind, just different approaches to understanding/solving the many, many problems the Bush Administration has foisted upon America. I spend 2 - 3 hours every morning, first doing the online jigsaw puzzle, then digging into the blogs. I start with Raw Story, then to This Modern World. I've been an avid fan of Tom Tomorrow since I was a student at UCLA. Then it's on to Talking Points, MyDD, then up to the beginning of my list,
Billmon (formerly), BobHarris, Daily Kos, Eschaton, LiberalOasis (sometimes) and at the end of the day, I end with one of my newer additions, Firedoglake, and somewhere in between, I am all over the HuffingtonPost. In the meantime I am trying to do all the work I need to do, while listening to AirAmerica on my computer. I need them all, I can't live without them all, and neither can America and the liberal/progressive movement. Nor can our political leaders. Each blog brings a peice of the puzzle and a voice that must be heard. We are all in this together, let's not try to find ways to divide us.

Both good points.

Other blogs do engage in traditional journalism. Marcy Wheeler ("empty wheel") has done so wrt the Libby case. Glenn Greenwald has done original reporting on illegal surveillance that made its way into the major dailies.

Right now, Firedoglake has a guy with a press pass at the Libby trial.

But I agree that what Josh has created seems to be unique--a collection of endeavors that are very much journalism.

Unlike the printing press, a pamphlet or the NYTimes, the internet is interactive. Of course it can be and is being used to sell things, especially ideas. But, it is different in that instant and massive feedback is the norm here. Feedback always acts to modify the original "signal", and it does here too. The evolution of this discussion about the netroots as a movement is a good example of feedback. To answer your question though, the net is much more nearly like the printing press than a pamphlet or the NYT.

Hoppy in Sacramento

During the last election, the WaPo periodically ran pieces on specific political ads. They would start with a transcript, or at least a close representation of what was said. I don't remember the exact order, but if the opponent had taken a position on the same subject, that position was given, and then the Post's own fact-checking of the assertions in the original ad.

I would have liked to see that structure for more than just ads. Do you remember the mechanism, and, if so, is it what you like?

Apropos of soundbites, I tend to despair if that sort of analysis is possible within the time constraints. Do you see it as feasible there?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I am not oblivious to the interactive nature of the web. I just don't see anything momumentally different coming out of the web except that people who once might have discussed politics over coffee or a beer know can reach a larger national or international audience. The key is the entrepeneurs, Josh for example, who are willing to provide an organized forum for the discussions and debates and arguments.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The return of artappraiser....

Miss us?  :-)

Welcome back! 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Well, life intervenes sometimes with addictions. But managing to find the time to get a fix is calming and fortifying. In the end, what are we on earth for except to stimulate the neurons into a state of well being? Enough big "intellectual" thoughts for now.... :-)

Except the "F**K that guy!" blogs are the ones that got Iraq right while the others tended much more to go along with traditional/beltway viewpoints and at least initially got Iraq wrong.

I wasn't screaming 'Buck Fush' and 'Bush lied, GI's died' because I was caught up in some un-reasoning paroxysm of anger. I had paid attention, fully understood that Saddam actually admitting Inspectors and letting them inspect actually changed everything, that it meant that there were likely no WMDs at all and certainly none that would have been a threat to the US. It was a fully reasoned anger that fueled those rants. People who should have known better, like Kerry and Clinton, people who in all likelyhood actually did know better, decided to sit back on let Bush get his war on. Apparently on the calculation "how bad can it be".

Well we all know how that calculation played out. The pure reality is that if you were not angry, if you were not shouting to get over the din of 70% approval levels, you were not being heard at all.

It is not like there were not calm rational voices laying out the case against this war, it is just that bye and large no one was listening.

Would you consider the internet with institutions such as TPM, Kost, etc. as similar to the combination of the printed word, expanded education and coffee houses in which to discuss the new ideas?

I would, except that this is a lot faster, my terminal is in my bedroom, and it is decaffinated.

Brother, as someone who runs a blog which is, mostly, a "F**K that guy!" blog, I don't have any problem with that sort of rhetoric. Hell, I'm heartened that it's become more common on the left, where, at least, you usually get good, solid reasons for the f**king. The right's been fighting bareknuckled for years with mostly b.s.--Clinton murder accusations anyone?--the least we can do is get ticked when the truth has been ignored.

What's interesting, though, is the separation between blogs which write primly and those which write coarsely mostly exists on the left. On the right, the Malkins and LGFs are respected pretty much uniformly despite their willingness to bring out the tough stuff.

Yeah, I've seen it on TV, too. But every time, it's the same thing. The "Truth Squad" will expose some right-wing whopper, but balance it with some mild exaggeration from the lefty and give the impresssion that the two balance out.

"very careful documentation of their statements with real facts"

Yeah. That's the essence of it for me. Blogs encourage fact-checking in real time. That is a completely new option. In a real coffee shop, opinions rule, here we can check for ourselves.

Newspapers and TV are clearly freeling threatened by the Web. However they are being challenged as much be ebay and Youtube as bloggers.

My question, it does not seem that there is an obvious answer, is the Web like the coming of print, the most important change of the second half of the last millenium. Or, the
Web an amplifier of existing trends.

One trend is that younger people, I have a 12 year old daughter so see it up close, are so much more connected to each other and to pop culture through the technological inventions. Similarly business has become global mainly because technology allows the movement of money and work digitally. How do these trends relate to the Web and Blogs?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I don't think you can say "the web." It's more like digital media in all its forms; the web and blogs are a part of that.

But it's another aspect of the trends you cited: accessible interfaces to technology, social connectedness, and new economic models made possible through digital media. These are all common characteristics, whether it's blogging or youtube-ing.

A good reference point for this might be the work of Harold Innis. He examined the "social history of communication media," noting how power is gained by controlling media in a society. The web combines elements of time-biased media (the "memory" of wikipedia, the oral nature of blog communication) as well as space-biased media (light and transportable, not physical). More importantly, there is right now no monopoly over media technology. You see that in netroots "versus" journalism struggle, or napster versus the music industry, or open source versus micro$oft.

Does the web represents a fundamental shift, rather than an amplifier? Maybe we cannot know just yet. But it's clear to me the web is unlike any other media to date, so my money's on the shift.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Interesting, Sara. At the end of this long thread, you did what I had in mind. I don't know how one could do it, but it would be interesting to know where the users go on their daily rounds.

I was a campus marxist in the '70's. I missed the real '60's, though I knew some who had been there.

I loved to read foreign policy journals in those days, and that is how TPM serves me now, and much more satisfactorily. And however much I may not like our president, or anyone else, I like that TPM posters generally are civil. Hyperbole and detraction weaken one's argument.

As for the divide between journalism and activism, speaking or writing are actions. A good story or analysis may accomplish more than any amount of marching and sign waving. As for me, I am The Watcher.

So where do I go, what is on my browser links bar? TPM, TomDispatch, CounterPunch, Marxmail, and The (Manchester) Guardian Online.

Oh dear, a gold star from Howard. I think you mean a Pearl of Great Price. A Sapphire in the Mud, perhaps? I am just a lurking librarian. You are all out of my league.

No apology needed.

I'm afraid I was the one who introduced the "T" word in this conversation. Nobody enjoys a good, abstract philosophical discussion more than I, but to my way of thinking, the philosophical part of journalism determines which situations "deserve" to be covered -- and let's not go down that road for the moment.

Once the topics are chosen, it's not the journalist's job to present "both sides" or "all sides" of a controversial subject with equal weight -- not when the journalist is aware that one side reflects reality and the other does not. The journalist should report all sides, all right, in order to point out the merits and defects of each.

That's not what happens these days. The MS news M have adopted their warped "fairness" doctrine: Present each side's argument as though it is objectively true, and don't bother to point out the spots where the facts contradict.

Ya don't have to be a philosopher to see where this paradigm leads: it leads to Iraq.

I am afraid issue selection is likely the MOST critical bias in American journalism.

I have no argument with that; it just wasn't the topic about which I was ranting at the moment.

Good. Don't forget them "quotational devices." Technically, they're inch marks. Quotations are "curly."

:-)

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com