PhotoDude.com

One rule of humankind. One observation.

a) 15% of all people are jerks.

b) Fewer than 15% of all people have weblogs.

now, where’d I put that calculator . . .

The term “Mainstream Media” or “MSM” is on odd one, especially considering the people who employ it. I can’t help but think of the Soviet epithet “bourgeois press” every time I see “MSM” used. Actually, a lot of stuff reminds me of Soviet tactics and propaganda these days.

As far as the main topic, I feel that blogs are, at their heart, just a way for someone to communicate their own thing to the wider world. Most people have no further ambition than to relieve their own stress and frustration. I remember back in 01-02, a lot of people commented that warblogging was a great catharsis and an exercise in having fun. I don’t see too much of that anymore from the poliblog set. They’ve turned it into a Movement. Worse, they’ve turned it into a job, rather than a fun hobby.

Your observation seems to stem from this feeling that blogs are supposed to be either a supplement or a replacement for the actual press. It funny, because it’s bloggers pigeonholing themselves by declaring what blogging is and what it’s to be used for, which leads to all this nonsense about a “code of ethics” and what-not.

Once you start defining and regulating something, you “solidify” it and pretty much kill off what made it neat in the first place by shutting off avenues of exploration and creation. Fortunately, it’s really only the poliblogs that are engaging in this Manifest Destiny of Blogs crap, and I have a feeling that they will be co-opted by the larger media and usurped in pre-emininence by more interesting forms and uses of blogging software.

“I can’t help but think of the Soviet epithet ‘bourgeois press’ every time I see ‘MSM’ used.”

On … the … nose. It’s always bothered me as well, and but I’ve never put a finger on why quite like that.

“Your observation seems to stem from this feeling that blogs are supposed to be either a supplement or a replacement for the actual press.”

Well, “this feeling” certainly isn’t my feeling. But there are a lot of bloggers who hope to be considered journalists, or revered stakeholders in their political party … or both. OK, fine. I prefer catblogging, myself. But those additional “titles” bring additional responsibilities and obligations. Yes, they do, despite their obscene protestations. Because they’re not just a blogger anymore, they’ve claimed a stake at another table, where the rules are different.

And if you become the most trafficked liberal blog on the web, and that fact is trumpeted in various “MSM” articles about you, well, here’s another bag of rocks for you to tote around. You can say “Um, who gives a shit who it surprised” and ‘Zephyr can go to hell’ but you now will be microscopically criticized for your choice of words … just like the Big Boys you hope to play with.

Imagine even Howard Dean publicly calling Bill O’Reilly a “dumb-fuck” and then saying “who gives a shit who’s surprised I paid Kos? Zephyr can go to hell.” How “statesmanlike” would that be for one of the most visible representatives of the Democratic Party?

On the web today, that’s what Kos is. Whether he likes it or not.

Of course, I guess I better watch it myself. Because of this article, I’ve been referred to as “the blogosphere’s Jeremiah.”

Not being familiar enough with the Old Testament prophet to know why I would be compared to him, I found this

“Jeremiah had a tough time being a prophet. People didn’t want to listen to him, and when his prophecies suggested that their own actions would cause the downfall of their beloved Jerusalem, they even threatened to kill him. At various times, Jeremiah is flogged, locked in a cell, and dropped into a muddy pit [...] He repeatedly warned the King and the people that they could not defeat the Babylonians by force. The only way to overcome the enemy was by becoming more moral and ethical people. He called upon the Israelites to pay attention to their fellow human beings, and for that he was attacked.”

Oh, my. I find that both amusing, and sobering. I think I’ll just shut up, now.

If I remember right, Jeremiah was the Reluctant Prophet. God told him to go one way but he went another.

Unless it’s Jonah I’m thinking about. I get my J’s mixed up.

I agree with you about Kos and the other ones, but I guess I didn’t make the point as clear as I should. They’ve fashioned themselves into these standard-bearers, mouthpieces, supplements, and/or replacements for the media and organizing efforts. By doing so, they’ve subjected themselves to the rules of the game they’re playing.

What I meant with my comment is that you were making a point from their “Blog Triumphant” angle. It wasn’t an accusation or anything, just an observation. Now that I’ve thought about it, I think you’re on to something. Since these blogs have in essence become “Them”, then they should be subjected to the same withering scrutiny (and mockery) usually reserved for The Man, since they’re employed by The Man.

But so am I, actually, so forget that. I think you catch my drift, though. I’ve had a few drinks and I’m not thinking clearly.

Because of this article, I’ve been referred to as “the blogosphere’s Jeremiah.”

Well, not because of this article so much. Reading your politically-related posts over the last year, it occurred to me that you were definitely cranking out jeremiads.

How “statesmanlike” would that be for one of the most visible representatives of the Democratic Party?

On the web today, that’s what Kos is. Whether he likes it or not.

No, that’s not what Kos is, whether you like it or not. “Visible”, yes. “Representative of the Democratic Party,” no. Not until he gets elected, or selected by those who were. I see what what you mean; Kos plays a similar political role to, say, Limbaugh, who I imagine you’ve criticized just as vehemently at some point or another (and if so, with considerably more justification).

I agree that Kos, as a prominent and visible writer/activist, deserves close scrutiny, as does Oliver Willis. I also agree that bad language and bad manners don’t inspire respect (and recall that Cheney and Bush provide examples of that, too). I think Kos and Willis can both confuse use of bad or insulting (“Taliban”) language with feistiness/combativeness (as do I sometimes). The latter is completely justified, the former is not. “Worse,” it’s counterproductive, because it gives folks an excuse to not think about the issues that mean a lot more than whether you’d like to “have a beer with the guy” as I believe Hraka put it. I don’t really think you’re one of those folks, but you seem to be taking up their standard in this post.

“Visible, yes. ‘Representative of the Democratic Party,’ no. Not until he gets elected, or selected by those who were.”

Well, I think the Dean campaign “selected” him, but I see your point. Mine, more finely, was that when it comes to Democratic or liberal politics on the web today, DailyKos is the standard bearer, and the most visited liberal blog on the web. In that respect, he is indeed a “representative,” if not in the Constitutional sense. I’m just continually surprised by the disregard towards that concept.

“I see what what you mean; Kos plays a similar political role to, say, Limbaugh, who I imagine you’ve criticized just as vehemently at some point or another.”

Me? No . But I don’t think it’s fair to compare anybody to Limbaugh. I consider his primary motivations to be commercial, and I don’t accuse Kos of that.

“I also agree that bad language and bad manners don’t inspire respect (and recall that Cheney and Bush provide examples of that, too).”

I do. And as I said then, I’m not a prude at all, but there’s even more to it than that: “At at time he wanted to say something memorable and pointed … the best he could come up with was a common slur that your average 8th grader could top. No creativity, at all. Just a crass vulgarity.”

“it gives folks an excuse to not think about the issues that mean a lot more than whether you’d like to ‘have a beer with the guy’ as I believe Hraka put it. I don’t really think you’re one of those folks, but you seem to be taking up their standard in this post.”

I don’t mean to. I don’t expect Kos or Oliver or anyone to make nicey-nice and be everybody’s “good buddy who just has some different views.”

It’s about respect. Respect for your readers. Respect for your opponents. Respect for yourself. I enjoy combative and feisty, but “dumbfuck” fails on all three counts.

And I hate to keep citing that one example, as it is illustrative, not one sole complaint. As I said repeatedly last year, I’ve reached the point where if you can’t discuss politics without resorting to insults and obscenities, you’re not worth my time. I’ve heard four decades of insults and obscenities of all types, some really killer ones, so I don’t seek to learn more. I visit these sites in hope of something else.

And while I am one to proudly proclaim, “it’s your site, you can say anything you want” ... inlcuding “dumbfuck” ... I’ve always said that in reference to people who want to blog.

Now we’ve got people who want to be journalists, with access and respect above and beyond your average LiveJournaler. They want to be political operatives and consultants, with all of the baggage that brings. They’re not bloggers anymore, by their own choice. And I’ll hold them to a different standard. “You can say anything you want” no longer applies.

Or, you can say it. But you’re going to turn off lots of random people who read in the “MSM” about this lovely liberal blog, and show up to find verbal nuclear war.

So I suppose it really is your right to say whatever you want. Most of us don’t have to worry about collateral damage to others from our words, though.

Kos does.

But I’ve said enough on this, and none of it will change a thing. Other than maybe to get me “flogged, locked in a cell, and dropped into a muddy pit.” No thanks. Do carry on.

You’re just not ‘reality-based’ like those guys are.

“Visible, yes. ‘Representative of the Democratic Party,’ no. Not until he gets elected, or selected by those who were.”
...
Well, I think the Dean campaign “selected” him, but I see your point.

I must point out, vehemently, that Dean was proven, at the ballot box, not to represent the Democrats any more than Kos does. (who we did select is kind of a sore subject as well, but at least it wasn’t Dean.)

Second:
I’ve heard four decades of insults and obscenities of all types, some really killer ones, so I don’t seek to learn more. I visit these sites in hope of something else.

Yeah, but did any of them beat Hemingway’s “I piss in the milk of your mother.”?

Well, you can judge for yourself.

I think my personal favorite may be from Emerson: “What you are shouts so loud in my ears I cannot hear what you say.”

Though I have adapted this one for personal usage: “When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it.”

It’s also interesting that on that page of collected classic insults, there’s only one “cuss” to be found, and it is used as an accurate anatomical reference, not a slur (“If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I’d be at home with a pack of Camels and a short length of rubber hose”).

A buddy, a then-Morehouse-student named Ali, once said of a particularly inane conversation we were overhearing:

“It’s not fair. They’re taking up all that air talking about nonsense while someone, somewhere, is suffocating.”