The Liberal Blogosphere's Uncertain Future
I think the 'now what?' question for the blogosphere remains paramount, as it faces a real two-fer. The first was the completely expected exit of W. Bush from the national political stage and what that would mean to an online movement that was essentially created to oppose him.
The second is more unexpected: the rise of Twitter and other more immediate communications. For context, I finished writing/reporting the Bloggers book back in December and at the time very few people (relatively speaking) were talking about Twitter. This week it's on the cover of Time.
What does that phenomenal growth, in the wake of Facebook's phenomenal growth, mean to the blogosphere's future? There's a reason, I think, that the PdF panel I'm going to be on in two weeks is called "Does Blogging Still Matter"? I think planners are overstating the case a bit, but you get the idea. (Ari notes below that it's Twitter making the New Media headlines from Iran this week, even more so than bloggers.)
Generally, I think Amanda's right that the blogs can maintain an energy and passion by continuing with its outside status, even with a Democrat in the WH. (And I think lib bloggers have proved wrong their conservative critics who claimed they'd simply roll over for Obama in the WH and act as cheerleaders.) They key is that the blogosphere was never created (way back when) to be an appendage of the DNC. There are plenty other Beltway institutions that will robotically cheer Dem politicians no matter what they do. Instead, the blogs were created to give voice to liberalism in America. And if liberals today don't like some of the things they see in government, then the blogs are still quite willing to document that and give a cohesive voice to the left; a voice that did not exist the last time a Democrat was in the WH.
So I'd suggest that the question Armando raised about whether Obama will continue to receive the type of unquestioning love from the blogs (the kind of love he enjoyed last year) is being answered, and the answer is no. (See Amanda's comment re: DOMA.) And those critiques, I'd argue, are paying off. Witness the announcement about Obama extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
Think back to the Clinton years and when that administration sometimes strayed toward the center (i.e. triangulated), and try to recall just how muted and disjointed the pushback was from the progressive movement. And certainly from the progressive media movement. Today though, I suspect, that the new Democratic WH understands that if its policies upset liberals, and especially lib blogger and their readers, than there will be a coordinated and very loud response. And that those moves to the center now come with some sort of price to be paid. I don't think that was the case in the 1990's.
Now, will that outsider status/passion be enough to fuel the movement in years to come? Honestly, I don't know. And at least one reader below mentioned they noticed a decline in the quality of liberal blog content in 2009. The fact is, I think it's a lot more difficult to be compelling while being nuanced, which is what most bloggers have been since Obama moved into the WH.
And P.S. It's still worth pondering why Obama in 2008 enjoyed "unquestioning love" from the blogs, as Armando put it, considering he was running on essentially the same platform that he's now trying to put into action; a platform that regularly prompts jabs from liberals online.
We don't need W to justify our existence and we also don't need just to oppose Obama from the outside. Remember that online liberalism started with Moveon.org a group that opposed the Republican attempt to impeach Clinton. The opposition to Obama is in disarray right now but it won't always be. It will undoubtedly grow and the left blogosphere will need to report on that and try to help fight it back. We might well find a mission in defending Obama even as we argue that he should pay more attention to liberal causes.
As for Twitter -- it's great but it's not real writing.
June 17, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Boehlert:
I question your motives and credibility.
Your latest book completely ignores the minority blogosphere and, quite frankly, ignores everything but the charges during the primary of racism versus sexism... in which you clearly place your eggs in the basket of sexism. In so doing, you managed to ressurect last year's conflict in order to generate controversy and sell sell sell.
There is no way that Twitter can replace or supercede cogent analysis. Twitter can state observations, basic facts, and emotional appeals. Twitter promotes the corroding of analysis, and its format eliminates the possibility for discussion beyond the perfunctory. Take TPM or Digby's blog and try to "Twitterpate" it... not possible. There is a place at the media table for blogs which still fill a void that the corrupt mainstream media leaves for information and reportage.
"And P.S. It's still worth pondering why Obama in 2008 enjoyed "unquestioning love" from the blogs, as Armando put it, considering he was running on essentially the same platform that he's now trying to put into action; a platform that regularly prompts jabs from liberals online."
Why ponder the obvious? Obama's campaign was based on a two-flank grassroots approach: focus on small donors, and mobilize the internet (in a manner that bypassed bloggers) to generate positive word of mouth. There is also the fact that he rode a wave of synergy from the 2004 convention address. And finally, while the platform was ultimately the same, the approach was different. Obama emphasized post-partisanship and did not attack Bush/Cheney but instead attacked their strident and narrow ideology. Hillary was about fighting the right, which is gutsy but carried too much baggage from the 90s. The voters overwhelmingly voted for the image of postpartisan government that could function without government shutdowns, Whitewater, or the blanket limbic-system sophistries of neoconservatism.
Seriously, Mr. Boehlert, I suggest you find a new hobby-horse to ride. President Obama managed to backhand Daily Kos on more than one occasion, and in fact his campaign managed to assign the blogosphere the role of progressive agitators. Further, there has been a wide network of minority blogs that have risen and offer a perspective that is sorely lacking from the standard-issue blogosphere. You managed to completely ignore its existence... in your book, I would feel that a blog like Field Negro would be a rich vein of research during the Rev. Wright controversy as well as the Pennsylvania primary (which set the Pennsyltucky appalachian "hard-working white Americans" against the urban minorities in Philly)... but you instead stoked fires aimed at setting old wounds alight.
Therefore, I question your motives, I question your premise, and finally, I question your competence. Both campaigns exploited identity politics and the sensitivities therein. Perhaps you could muster your skills and reputation in the direction of writing a history of both campaigns from the inside, where a Microtend-spouting Mark Penn attempted to split the demographic atom and went up against a diversified and broad-brush approach waged by Axelrod.
In conclusion, Obama's campaign was progressive while his platform (like Hillary's) was staunchly moderate... the blogosphere embraced the campaign with the hope that a grassroots approach meant that activism could push Obama to the left. In other words, Obama meant more potential lobbying power for blogs. All the rest is sophistry.
June 17, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way that Twitter can replace or supercede cogent analysis. Twitter can state observations, basic facts, and emotional appeals. Twitter promotes the corroding of analysis, and its format eliminates the possibility for discussion beyond the perfunctory.
Have you used it?
Twitter is not unlike the comments section of a blog. It doesn't replace analysis, but it facilitates it. It facilitates the spread of links and ideas, in some ways better than any single blog can.
The difference between the comments section on a blog like this one, of course, and Twitter is the 140 character limit. But if you're only looking at the 140 characters, you're missing the fact that one single tweet doesn't matter, but the totality of them do.
June 17, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what losing analysis means for what you think "facilitates".
My guess is the vast majority of people reading twitter wont follow up with in depth reading.
Don't Americans love fast food, to the detriment of their health?
June 17, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is the vast majority of people reading twitter wont follow up with in depth reading.
Are you suggesting the vast majority of bloggers/commenters do "in depth" reading?
I mean, I think you can generalize pretty much anything about a place as vast as Twitter.
Of course there are frivolous uses of Twitter; there are spambots and people who simply repost their blogs, Oprah, etc, etc.
Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly, but I was simply trying to point out that Twitter is more than just 140 character statements about bathroom habits and what people are eating for breakfast.
What's happening in Iran right now proves it. People are finding links, getting engaged, and following the story. Participating.
Dismissing Twitter as the "fast food" of social networking is missing something more important.
June 17, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding commentary. Twitter may provide raw, real-time data, but is no substitute for ongoing investigative reporting. They are two entirely separate aspects of journalism.
June 17, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
i would ask , what exactly do you consider a liberal blog?
TPM is NOT.
the Nation comes closer.
even Mother Jones.
in fact one needs to go to many differnet places to read the progressive voices.
ever see anything from Jonathan Cook here?
how about Chris Hedges?
i am sure everyone can name their own favs.
the point is the so called liberal/progressive voice is not found in a single place and it remains free of "unquestioning love ", as it always should.
and i like having to find the voices that move me.
if i didnt i would just put on fox news or read the politico.
June 17, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're a liberal blog. And if you disagree, me, artappraiser, quinn, a chicken and LisB will beat your ass.
June 17, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point.
June 18, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
One real problem that I see already happening is that some commentators on liberal blogs are in danger of becoming DC insiders themselves, and thus losing that all-important outsider perspective.
June 17, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on.
June 17, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric,
I've read Bloggers on the Bus, and thought that it was overall a very interesting read.
I wonder if you understand why some bloggers don't agree with your take in the Blog Wars chapters? I think it would be fine to title those chapters "The Blog War of 2008 from the Point of View of Hillary Supporting Bloggers," but I don't think it passes for an objective account.
My understanding from your writing is that anyone who was frustrated with the Clinton campaign in the "kitchen sink" phase of the primary had CDS, and that there was no reasonable viewpoint that would result in that frustration.
Indeed, I believe if you had spoken to more Obama supporting bloggers you would have heard things to the effect that Clinton had stepped over the line. The line about her and McCain having passed the Commander-in-Chief status but not Obama comes to mind, but there were many times in the campaign that she was over the top.
I'm also concerned that you favorably mentioned one or two bloggers who currently run thinly veiled Obama hate sites. Have you followed the bloggers you describe or quote since the book was written?
June 17, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What blogsphere was this guy involved in in 2008? What I recall is a pitched battle between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters.
As far as support from his fans, well, I can't speak for people upset about DOMA, he did say he was opposed to gay marriage, but with respect to Gitmo, covering up for Bush, and indefinite detainment: he certainly didn't run on that.
June 17, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well to begin with, he did not receive unquestioning love from the blogosphere. Armando is lying through his teeth (surprise).
And two, he is not running on the same platform, he is watering it down so much that it's become a pathetic joke and we'd also like him to do more to exterminate the Republican party.
June 17, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't the hula hoop on the cover of the Times? Does it even matter? Twitter won't take the place of anything. Neither will Facebook, given it's technological limitations. These can augment at best and serve as a piss-poor substitute at worst.
June 17, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipperupus and AltHippo ask excellent questions. Why were no minority bloggers included in your book? Isn't their perspective kind of important, seeing as they were blogging about the election of the first black president?
And how on earth can you purport to cover the 2008 blog wars while airing only one side of the story? Yes, there was sexism and misogyny directed at Clinton and her supporters. But there was (and is) copious racism and unhinged hatred directed at Obama and his supporters, some from the very blogs you cite as victims of misogyny without mentioning the well-documented racism Clinton supporters engaged in.
It sounds like you are uncritically buying Armando's bogus claim that Obama received uncritical love from the blogs last year, which seriously undermines your credibility. I know better having just been a casual reader of some major blogs and an obscure blogger myself. That you could write a book on the topic and remain unaware of this is pretty astonishing.
June 17, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a silly post. I mean, the existence of a liberal blogoshere depends more on questions of distribution and access rather than individual approaches to the current occupant of the White House.
The "Blogoshere" will be there as long as Liberals are there to feed it. The far more serious question is who controls the pipes.
It's not by coincidence that broadcast radio is practically liberal-free. The essential thing is now to follow that model -- particularly in ownership.
June 18, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the central problem with these discussions is the assumption that one type of media needs to replace another. Blogs did not replace the MSM. Blogs can't even be take full credit for weakening the MSM. The Internet as a whole, and the ability to get information immediately rather than wait until the next day, weakened the MSM.
So I don't think Twitter or Facebook or whatever else will come will replace blogs. But to guarantee this, blogs must embrace things like Twitter to get their posts out there -- but everyone already does that.
So this doomsday talk about blog Armageddon is much ado about nothing.
June 18, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your point about critics from the left keeping up pressure on the Obama administration to pursue liberal policies, but that doesn't mean that the only useful function that the liberal blogosphere can serve is to be critical. It is also useful for Obama to have a lot of support on the left and the middle in order to push through a progressive agenda. For example, one of the main reasons that any kind of health care reform is going to pass is that Obama enjoys an approval rating of over 60% and the Republicans in Congress are not trusted on this issue. So supporters of a progressive health care plan not only need to keep the pressure on the administration to push for such a plan, but also need to demonstrate their support for the administration's plan. One reason Ronald Reagan was able to move this country so far to the right was that he had legions of supporters flooding Congress with letters of support. Obama needs that kind of support also to push the country in a different direction. That is why my blog is unabashedly a cheerleading blog, and I have not lost any enthusiasm for maintaining that tone or purpose. http://www.hopeandchange.net
June 18, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respect your sentiments, Mr. Markowitz, But I think that the blogosphere as both a critical and educating medium should act to force change. Obama's 60% job approval rating is from last month; it's now 55%. Now, that's pretty good but you see the trend.
The drop is mostly about two issues: the bailouts of fat-cat stockholders, instead of letting the chips fall where they may (painful but necessary self-correction and shrinking of the "too big to fail"), and the looming compromises on health care.
Seventy-six per cent of the American public favors a public healthcare option, at the very least. Understand, that is an overwhelming mandate in and of itself. But subtracting the 20% of the 'drown-government-in-a-bathtub' movement conservative dead-enders and the hundreds of thousands who are profiting one way or another from the HC system as it is along with the massive ad campaigns corporations have put up, I'd say almost everyone without a vested interest wants universal HC with a public option or single-payer.
The President and Dems can demand this and pass it. They can override any filibuster attempt (and I believe Obama said he would at one point). He needs absolutely nothing from the Republicans or Blue dogs. With 80% behind him, he can roll over them as he wishes. And it is the right thing to do.
Yet, all we are hearing is doublespeak debates from congressional committee members after conferring with their corporate masters and some begrudging murmurs about working something out (i.e. swapping a public option for more regulation of the corporations).
If one only listens to broadcast news or reads the local paper (if that), one might believe that compromise is all very reasonable. After all, the President seems to think (as much as he’s spoken about it) that compromise is reasonable and post-partisan, and he's an intelligent, moderate and reasonable person. Considering this state of affairs, the Left, with an independent voice on the internet, should not be anything but critical of Obama and congress on this.
June 19, 2009 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Don. Joe is no doubt concerned how the right will twist criticism from the left in the MSM to suit its' own agenda. It is in the end a three dimensional chess game. I suppose the president is up to the game and will incorporate or deflect his detractors, left or right, as suits his own agenda. In the meantime, I will continue my criticism, and expect him to deflect or assimilate as he deems necessary.
June 19, 2009 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Miguel. And the MSM, to a great degree, have not only painted bloggers as basement-dwelling and pajama-garbed losers but as wearing tin foil hats, too. Bloggers are angry, shrill, extremist, partisan, paranoid, and most of all, just don’t understand “how things work.”
So, I can see how Joe’s approach and tone can counteract that. I see a lot of starry-eyed optimism about hope and change that still persists around the blogosphere. I’m not putting that down at all, and spreading realistic hope is a good thing. But as a political stance, it results in giving in to the establishment’s moderate, compromising, right-of-center, corporate-favoring, status quo mind-set. It not only gives cover and enables Dems to concede positions when they don’t have to, it encourages giving away the store instead of fighting for what their real constituents want.
For example, the stimulus package was a good thing for the most part, and I give credit too Obama and congress for passing it. But if you recall the events and the feelings of the public at the time, I think much more could have been gained. Obama and congressional leaders go in with already compromised proposals to appease the opposition. The Republicans, and sometimes Democrats, then demand further weakening of whatever bill or issue is up for debate.
I understand it's politics, and deal-making compromise, logrolling, lobbying, etc. are part of the process. But these deals shouldn't be part of the process unless absolutely necessary (sometimes not even then). I can see how hope and change would seem to call for "moving forward and putting the past behind us," too. But having two standards of justice, one that forgives political leaders and those that followed illegal orders, and one that punishes the poor is not a change and is not hopeful.
When the Democratic Party, the party of labor and the working man, cannot pass the EFCA, a simple bill to allow people to choose unionization without intimidation, something is wrong with this picture. When there is overwhelming public support for something that is a natural issue for liberals and moderates, but a Democratic WH and Congress cannot get it done, there is obviously something wrong with our representative government. If the blogosphere is not going to fight against that, who will?
June 19, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respect and even value the rights of those on the left to offer constructive criticism of President Obama and the Democrats in Congress in an effort to obtain passage of a progressive agenda. President Roosevelt used to tell people on the left that he needed some pressure from that side to get him to act on their agenda. I'm sure President Obama does too.
But I have made a personal choice not to act as a critic right now. I've spent my whole life being critical of every Democrat and every Republican administration in power, since Kennedy, the last president that I had uncritical admiration for. And since I was only about six when Kennedy was elected, it was pretty easy to be uncritical at that time. I am tired of being an angry cynic, and I feel much better being a cheerleader right now. I think that the new administration needs all the support it can get, and that is what I plan to offer. I also think that President Obama has a much better sense of what is actually possible to achieve in the real world than anyone else that I can think of. So I really don't agree that he could have gotten a more aggressive stimulus package through Congress, and I also think that even if he had been able to do that, he would have faced a much bigger backlash than the mild tea party protests we saw a couple of months ago.
So while I respect all of your rights to criticize, I am trying to serve a different purpose now. http://www.hopeandchange.net
June 19, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely understand (especially getting tired of being cynical, frustrated, angry) and I respect what you’re doing. I was using that as an example of where I think the liberal blogosphere in general may be failing our leaders and ourselves. But good luck in your efforts. Oh, and I, too, was an ardent, if ignorant, six y.o. Kennedy campaigner. I still remember one of our campaign chants:
Kennedy, Kennedy, He’s our man
Nixon belongs in the garbage can!
June 20, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v linux, microsoft iscsi download
March 29, 2011 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of server high availability
April 28, 2011 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink