From the Opinion Journal: However

From the Opinion Journal:

However the flap over CBS and those National Guard "memos"
turns out, the past few weeks mark a milestone in U.S. media and
politics. Along with the Swift Boat Veterans' ads, the widespread
challenge to Dan Rather's reporting--to his credibility--means that the
liberal media establishment has ceased to set the U.S. political
agenda.
This is potentially a big cultural moment. For decades liberal media
elites were able to define current debates by all kicking in the same
direction, like the Rockettes. Now and then they can still pull this
off, as when they all repeated the same Pentagon-promoted-torture line
during the Abu Ghraib uproar. But the last month has widened cracks in
that media monopoly that have been developing for some time.

Han's words to Luke are ringing in my ears: "GREAT, KID! DON'T GET COCKY!"
Now, I don't mean to underplay the role the blogosphere played in
Rathergate, or to demean those blogger's efforts. They brought down the
biggest of the big dogs---and, at the very least, they will be able to
mount Rather's pelt on their hunting lodge walls in short order. But to
have the Wall Street Journal
declare that "the liberal media establishment has ceased to set the
U.S. political agenda," while a very satisfying sentiment, is also
pushing it. Such a statement ignores the betrayal the liberal media
will feel at Rather's take-down, even though they played a part in it.
It also ignores the simple fact that there is no such thing as a vacuum
and the media could potentially entrench themselves even further,
refusing to see that change is upon them. I really don't want to be a
wet blanket here, because the blogosphere really did scoop the mainstream media on this story. The good work done cannot be ignored or downplayed. But, and there's always a but,
if we really want the blogosphere to continue to be taken seriously, we
have to keep on keepin' on. We need to stop tooting our own horns. Not
to underestimate the blogosphere's power, but let's face it: the score
in this game is 357-1. Just because we managed to finally score a point
does not mean we're going to win the game. Capisce? All of this adds to
the neverending debate we seem to be having within the blogosphere
about our own importance. Sure it's great when Insty
or one of the other big dogs goes on about how great, important,
newsworthy, etc. the blogosphere is, but unless you're a big dog
blogger, the honest truth is you don't make much of a dent. Some of us
barely make a door ding. Yet, some of the biggest names who host the
most widely read and quoted blogs are also mainstream media-types who,
to my mind, have decided to grace us with their web presence
to---ahem---sell their swag, rather than to "be part of the
revolution." I will fully admit this is a cynical point of view to
hold. While the content can be good, even great---because some of these
writers finally have the option to vent opinions they could never
present on the Op-Ed pages---still it's the motives behind the content
that interest me. Did Michelle Malkin really need to start blogging? She's a latecomer to the blogosphere. I've
been blogging longer than she has, which doesn't mean much, I know, but
I find it interesting that she started up a blog a few months before she released a book.
So, I have to wonder, did she really want to be an active part of "the
revolution"? Or was this an interesting PR tool that enables her to
sell more books about how the Japanese Internment in WWII was an OK
thing to do? Or is it a bit of both? What would her sales be like had
she not started blogging?

While it's interesting that none of the big dog bloggers had anything to do with outing of Dan Rather, they're the loudest bangers of the blogosphere drum nowadays. Which leads me to ask, where's the line? Do we really believe that a blogger like Sullivan
holds more power in the blogosphere because he's a mainstream
commentator and his presence lends us credibility? Or is the other way
around and the blogosphere is being used in a way we'd never thought
possible? In other words, where will most of us, as pure, non-media
types, stand when it's all said and done? Will the blogosphere become
the opposition to the mainstream media, as some of us would like to
believe it to be, or will we be co-opted into it? When seldom sober was
here last week and was describing his travails in Denver, he mentioned this conversation he'd had with zombyboy:

zombyboy, of Resurrection Song got a bee in his bonnet
about how fringe bloggers are. We conducted a bar-wide survey and found
out that about ten percent of people know what 'blogs' are which, while
not a large amount, is far greater than, say, the amount of the US vote
that Nader's gonna get. Anyway. zombyboy was convinced that we needed
accountability, and editors and oversite to become mainstream and
respected journalists. Ignoring the obvious argument that we don't
represent ourselves as mainstream journalists, he received a tirade of
abuse from the other bloggers there. I think that wierd, blurry-faced
guy said something like "Fuck Big Media! Our readers are our editors
and our fucking accountability!" I was fully against zombyboy's
position too, though I couldn't find the eloquence to express myself
that blurry-face did.

As it happens, zombyboy further clarified his arguments in this post:

{...}I've said it before and I'll say it again, for blogs
to be meaningful they need to be more responsible and more
professional. As much as I enjoy blogging, as much value as I do find
in it, I still think the negatives make it hard for me to take the
impact that blogs have on events too seriously.
That isn't to say that blogs won't grow into a more important role, but
if you think we're there already just walk down the street and start
asking people how much they care what Instapundit thinks about any
specific issue. Then ask them about Dan Rather. Dan, even in his
embattled state and even with the obvious and real questions about his
credibility, will still have more recognition and more people who
consider him to be a trustworthy source.
I'm not saying that I believe blogs are completely without influence or
that they are worthless; I think there is a great potential for blogs
to have a positive influence on public debate over all kinds of
policies. I simply believe they aren't there yet, that some people
overstate their importance, and that for blogs to become truly
influential there has to be some kind of accountability in something
other than the latest troll comment on the site.

I agree with both
of them. I think the blogosphere is a revolution in itself, that the
simple fact we cover what the mainstream media refuses to touch with a
ten-foot-pole is impressive. The information wants to be free and we're
playing a crucial role in the liberation. But I also think that that
the blogosphere is a niche. We're simply set up to be that way.
Whenever you get a million-plus people starting up webpages to
spout-off on any topic under the sun, you'll have that. I also agree
that blogs aren't "there" yet, if "there" will ever be a place we can
define quantitatively. We have a ways to go before our opinions hold
the same weight in the real world as, for instance, a guy like Safire.
You can go on about whether or not Safire should be paid attention to,
but the crux of the matter is that attention is paid to him. Why? He
has a prominent space on the New York Times Op-Ed page, and we all know that you don't get published on the Op-Ed page of the NYT
unless you have something valuable to contribute to the debate. The
blogosphere has rejected the argument that we should pay attention to
Safire simply because of the space he holds on the Op-Ed page. What
matters to us is the content. There are no sacred cows in the
blogosphere, and that in itself is a huge shift.
But as zombyboy so aptly declared, "we're not there yet." We're making
strides, but the blogosphere has a long way to go before it's seen as a
trustworthy, consistent alternative to the mainstream media. The
media---including The Wall Street Journal---may
be trumpeting the blogosphere's role in Rathergate, and while this has
gone a long way toward establishing our street cred, the media will
also hit back as soon as the dust has settled. I'm forseeing a return
to "business as usual" and Rathergate will be seen more in the
mainstream media as an anomaly, much like Drudge breaking the Monica
Lewinksy scandal, rather than as the way things are going to be in the
future. The blogosphere may have taken one step forward, but soon we'll
be forced to take two steps back. This is why I don't think bloggers
can get cocky right now. That bloggers have to push forward and break
the next
story. And the one after that. They have to keep their noses to the
grindstone so the media will come to respect the opinions of bloggers
as worthy competition, rather than seeing us, at the very least, a as
bunch of "people on the fringe" whose opinions don't mean anything in
reality, or at most, an interesting and new way to market their books.
The blogosphere is taking part in shaping the debate. We've made it up
onto the podium at a debate tournament. But if we are to be successful
in the debate we need to keep in mind that our debating skills need
sharpening and we might want to think about who we let on the team to
speak for our side.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:07 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1685 words, total size 10 kb.