Who let out the cat?

Who let out the cat?

: I feel as if I had too much to drink at my own party and slept through all the good stuff. Well, I did have too much to drink (a nice cabernet, thank you; couldn’t resist that last nip) and the party was happening in the comments here: I thought I was writing one of my high-altitude (low-oxygen) musings on the future of media but thanks to Tony, Glenn, and Oliver, it turned into late-night boozy brawl in the rec room. Well, not actually, but I enjoyed the image, didn’t you?

To recap for those of us who slept it off last night, after my media musings in that post below, I said that commenters had called out Jon Stewart for hiding behind his comedy-show label when, in fact, he is a news provider and a critical member of the national conversation today. Tony Pierce then said in the comments I should call out Glenn Reynolds similarly because Glenn, he says, hides behind his I’m-not-a-news-service label. Oliver Willis piled on. Glenn responded to them here.

InstaPundit is not an unbiased news service. It consists entirely of my opinions and such links to factual items as I find interesting. Its whole purpose is as a vehicle for my biases, in fact. It is not unbiased and objective in any fashion, but rather is opinionated and slanted, much like other, more respectable, outlets such as The New York Times and TonyPierce.com.

I mostly agree with Glenn: Blogs do not pretend to be news services, no matter how voluminous their posting or traffic. They are vehicles for personal curiosities and bias and the difference between blogs and “real news” or even “fake news” is that (a) they cannot and do not try to be comprehensive and, more important, (b) they usually admit their bias.

Two further thoughts: I think that blogs should admit their bias; they should set the example for transparency. Even though it was quite evident that Glenn was voting for Bush, it’s good he said so today. That’s why I’ve been open about where I stand (if wobbily so), because I believe you should be able to judge what I say through that prism (and believe me, it’s not easy to talk about that in public after all my years of journalistic training that told me to keep my opinions to myself; it’s like coming out of a political closet). See also Tim Oren’s eloquent exercise in fence razing.

So a call to bloggers: If you haven’t yet said where your vote is going, please do. Don’t assume we know; maybe we just discovered you. Out with it.

A second thought after last night’s party in the comments room: I am seeing a qualitative difference between (a) news media that try — unsuccessfully — to deny bias, and (b) individuals’ blogs that carry bias, naturally, and (c) blogs that are founded on bias. When I get email or links from a blog in category C — like, say, CrushKerry — I frankly don’t pay much attention to it because I can predict precisely what it’s going to say. If I see a story in media from category A that doesn’t admit its bias, I look at it with suspicion and exhaustion because I get tired of trying to figure out its perspective. But when I see a person in category B publicly grapple with an issue and when I know that person’s perspective, I find the discussion far more interesting and illuminating. After the debates, I enjoyed going back and forth among bloggers voting for one side or the other to see it through different lenses; that was helpful. And that works only when the lenses are transparent.

: UPDATE: Matt Welch emails a Reason piece polling a quite diverse bunch of people on their 2004 and 2000 votes for President. Lots of cop-outs (which I define as not voting or voting for the Libertarian — sorry, Reason — or voting for Nader). But that also indicates the dissatisfaction with this year’s choice.

: UPDATE ON THE MEDIA MEME: This post says broadband is more than a speed, it’s a space. [via Rafat and Om]

: NUMBER UPDATE: Cory Bergman has the latest numbers to show that the Stewart segment got a bigger audience on the Web than it got on its big, old cable network.

  • http://youngcurmudgeon.typepad.com Eric Deamer

    What’s absurd of course is someone like Oliver Willis, a proud Soros/David Brock-funded member of category c calling someone “partisan” for merely being a member of category b. Some people just have no sense of irony.

  • http://oliverwillis.com Oliver

    Except that, as Jeff points out here, I’ve never hidden whether I’m partisan or not. I am.

  • Tim

    This is an odd debate, but heck, I’ll toss in.
    To my ears, Stewart ducking criticism of what he does and his impact was his way of keeping the focus on what he lampoons – news and newsmakers. He could just have easily said, “We’re talking about what you do, not what I do. It’s different. Don’t try to compare them.”
    That’s not to say that what Stewart does is free from criticism, or helps more than it hurts, or does so in a way that is comparable to Crossfire and other news-like genre. It’s just a different debate. Should Stewart be allowed to avoid criticism, duck the debate, ad infinitum because he’s a comedy show? No. Should Stewart allow Carlson or Begala to change the debate from the one Stewart came on Crossfire to have? No, he out Crossfire’d Crossfire. Good for him.
    Does Ollie Willis accusing Glenn Reynolds of hiding some mind control secret bias weapon of unstated partisanship make it so? Hell, no. Does Ollie slipping in that unsubstantiated criticism as a false comparison to Stewart say more about Ollie than Reynolds or Stewart? You bet.
    Next?

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    so eric (and jeff, if you care to bite) are you saying that glenn’s 30+ fervent pro-bush/anti-kerry posts a day helps his arguement that he is not partisan? and if a guy who just admitted bias and has linked every source and written every word to support his bias isnt partisan by definition, then what is he?
    jeff, back in may i created the Honest Blogger’s Quiz because, i agree with you, i think bloggers should admit their bias too. a few weeks ago i reposted it to remind my readers of my biases and invited other bloggers to use it as well.
    i totally agree with you that bloggers should set the example of transparency, but since Glenn won’t even admit to being a republican such a simple “quiz” is probably lost on him.
    why do you think that is? why would he be so fearful to come clean and clearly admit to his beliefs in one comprehensive post?
    of course people’s privacy is important, but this isnt asking for anyone’s social security numbers.
    either way i invite you to take part in the quiz as i have and many of my readers have, and some of the answers that people have – people whose blogs i read daily – surprise me, just like how i was surprised yesterday when glenn denied being partisan.
    sorry for all the commotion in your rec room last night. hopefully you will agree with me that none of it was mean-spirited.

  • Joe Baby

    Love all this rabble about Instapundit…he’s another one of those hardcore pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-drug legalization Republican partisans.
    Unless, of course, your definition of Republican is reduced to a response to the “Bush is Evil” continuum, and/or whether John Kerry and His Magic Wand policies are what America needs.

  • http://jimtreacher.com Jim Treacher

    I wish the blogger would talk about what I want him to talk about, in the manner in which I’d prefer him to talk about it. It’s not fair!
    Tee hee. Anyway, yeah, the Jon Stewart deal seems to have opened the floodgates. I’ve been getting an earful about it myself. Or eyeful, I guess.

  • pianoman

    Gotta agree with Jim Treacher here. The problem appears to be people’s perception of what blogging is supposed to be as opposed to what it actually is.
    There’s a reason the periodic roundup of interesting blog posts is called “Carnival of the VANITIES”, you know. Because blogging is, by its nature, full of self-absorption. Blogs that AREN’T partisan are the exception, rather than the rule.
    I score it Reynolds 1, Willis 0.

  • http://blogs.rny.com/sbw/ sbw

    Heh. It’s not “Where I stand.” It’s “What I’ve learned.”

  • http://www.halleyscomment.blogspot.com Halley Suitt

    On Wednesday, I’m heading up to the PopTech Conference which is kindof Bob Metcalfe’s baby (a Bush supporter) and where I (a Kerry supporter) will hope to chat with Joe Trippi (former Dean Campaign Manager and … I guess a Kerry supporter) and David Weinberger (a Kerry supporter) and others. Jeff will you be there?
    BTW, I (a card-carrying early-to-bed-early-to-rise Ben Franklin supporter) never stay up late enough to watch Jon Stewart so that appearance on Crossfire which I saw live (not yet a TIVO supporter) was one of the first times I’d heard Stewart and I thought, “Wow, is this the way this guy talks on The Daily Show every night?! How totally weird!”
    Anyway, thanks for your efforts towards making us “out” our political persuasions, and one more thing I (a lover of men) forgot to mention, I’m not a feminist but rather a girlist, but that’s a whole other conversation. Love your blog (you homeland hawk and wobbily guy), love Glenn Reynold’s (a Bush supporter) and Andrew Sullivan’s (an almost Kerry supporter who wishes he could support Bush) and a lot of other bloggers who don’t agree with me. I’ll be writing on Micah Sifry’s (a Kerry supporter I believe) new blog called Personal Democracy Forum, so check it out.

  • Penschool

    “So a call to bloggers: If you haven’t yet said where your vote is going, please do. Don’t assume we know; maybe we just discovered you. Out with it.”
    We still have secret ballots in this country, right?

  • http://blog.electricorange.com Andrew Levy

    Jeff, I’m completely with you about allowing readers to better see comments through a critical lens by acknowledging one’s bias.
    But, personally, I never understood the “objectivity” hoo-ha as it relates to journalism — journalists who think for one second they can be truly objective are the ones who scare me the most. Writer’s perspective is always a part of the story, and always has been. “Fair and balanced,” although very much not in the Fox News sense of the phrase, is a far more admirable and realistic journalistic goal.
    So why do Americans — and by my reckoning it is almost uniquely an American trait — go crazy at the notion of bias in the news, whether it be “the liberal media” on one hand, or Fox/WSJ etc. on the other?
    Say what you want about the Guardian and their recent stunt, but like most British newspapers, they make no attempt to convince you they’re objective. The Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian: they wear their politics on their sleeves. Their readers tend to identify politically with the paper they choose. And the discerning reader can cull from a variety of sources across the political spectrum, fully aware of their respective political stances.
    You’ll find a similar situation throughout Europe and in pretty much any major western democracy that isn’t the US.
    Why is this relevant? Because the (b) category “blogs that carry bias” you note in your post may well be the first honest American manifestation of a fair, yet consciously biased, news media.
    That is a very positive development, indeed.

  • Tim

    Maybe I missed it. Has tony or Ollie linked to a Glenn Reynolds’ post where he stated he was nonpartisan about Bush?
    Ollie, who drinks the Kool-Aid he bathes in, interprets anyone not spewing invective laced ad hominems against Bush as a mindless Rovean Bush-bot Republican party plant and … as an example of the height of hypocrisy … a hack.
    Here I am taking Glenn at his word that he is a libertarian, a less than enthusiastic Bush voter, and a Heinz Ketchup partisan.
    Silly me.

  • pianoman

    Andrew:
    The reason for the craziness regarding bias is that most of the MSM does NOT acknowledge it. As opposed to talk radio and blogs, which does.

  • HA

    John Stewart has become the left-wing Rush Limbaugh. He didn’t start out that way. I doubt if that was what he wanted to be. But that is what he is now.

  • http://mememomi.blogspot.com memer

    It’s a free country, but if there’s an effort afoot to reduce cheesery worldwide, I’m all for it. It’s cheesy to pretend dispassionate criticism in bloggery. Dispassionate criticism (as much as is reasonable for a human to muster) is for honest-to-goodness, fact-checking, doubt-both-sides, captial ‘J’ Journalism.
    Nevermind that one could probably tell after a number of visits how a blogger might feel about any one particular issue or politician. Nevermind that the language may be harsh. People want to know if you’re pretending to be objective or not.
    Why? Because there’s a perceived greater power in feigning objective conclusions (over braying obviously biased ones).
    Don’t be afraid to level the playing field, Glen (and everyone else).

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    tim,
    i think you did miss it. oliver, myself, and jeff in this very post linked to glenn saying that he was non-partisan in his support for bush, but i will link to it again in this comment. here.
    “Oliver Willis calls me ‘partisan.’ In the sense of supporting a candidate, sure, since I pretty much gave up on Kerry quite a while ago, but not in the sense of supporting a party regardless of candidate.”
    with 98% of his 150+ posts a week being written with a strong pro-rnc, anti-dnc, pro-war, anti-kerry stance, it’s difficult for me to agree with his recent opinoin that he is simply supporting candidate bush and not the party as a whole.
    if you can show me a pattern that would best support glenn’s statement, id sure love to see it.

  • http://blogs.rny.com/sbw/ sbw

    I’m not happy where this is going.
    Labels don’t mean sh*t to a tree.
    As Montaigne wrote 400 years ago, why shouldn’t I embrace the truth when I see it coming. Truth doesn’t have a label, it has an explanation. If I have an opinion, and you ask, I’ll support it with how I got there.
    And I’ll just as easily embrace truth from this side as from that. Only, just now, there doesn’t seem to be much truth coming from “that”.

  • daudder

    one of the many problems with bias is inconsistency…

  • Tim

    tony,
    Maybe it’s the browser I’m using, like how my Sony TV gets more commercials than my RCA TV, but your links don’t work: “linked to glenn saying that he was non-partisan in his support for bush, but i will link to it again in this comment. here.”
    “pro-rnc, anti-dnc” is the only pattern YOU need to show to validate YOUR accusation. Otherwise your bloviating.
    “pro-war, anti-kerry” is a partisan position on an issue and the candidate (based on that issue). This pattern supports Glenn’s position.
    I would broaden Glenn’s group to any number of hawkish Democrats that are partisan for Bush in this election despite his party and contrast them with a number of isolationist or paleoconservative partisan voters against Bush regardless of his party because of the war.
    There is also a distinction between a partisan and a hack.

  • Jaybird

    I just think that it speaks volumes that someone is honestly pushing forth the idea that you can’t really, really dislike Kerry without being “partisan”.
    I grew up in a household of Yellow Dog Democrats who explained to me that FDR and Harry Truman were the two best presidents the country had ever seen. My grandfather fought in the Phillipines in WWII and was a proud Union-Supporting Democrat all his life.
    However: When “On Golden Pond” came out, he told my family that he didn’t want us seeing it because he wanted none of our money going into Jane Fonda’s pockets.
    Would he have voted for Kerry had he not passed away? I don’t know. He may have because he didn’t want to break his string of voting for Democratic candidates.
    But I think that if his feelings toward John Kerry were anything like his feelings for Jane Fonda, he wouldn’t have and he might have told our family that he didn’t want us voting for him either.
    Would that have made him a partisan? Or a hack?
    This attitude that you can’t be a principled opponent of John Kerry would be easier to swallow if it had a sense of irony.

  • http://www.themediadrop.com Tom

    The “left wing Rush Limbaugh” ???? Please tell me you’re not serious.

  • Mork

    There’s a level at which Glenn’s response is fine, but there’s another on which it’s disingenuous, which is this: it’s one thing to honestly state your opinion on a range of different subjects, and if those opinions all tend to favor one candidate or party, well good luck to you.
    One the other hand, you might honestly hold an opinion that, say, Bush is the better presidential candidate, but choose to advance that opinion by assembling only the pieces of evidence that support your opinion (and ignoring those that don’t) and placing the most favorable possible interpretation to your guy on each piece of information, in order to better persuade people to your point of view.
    If you are in that category – yes, you are advancing your honestly-held belief, but you are at the same time promoting it by dishonest means. In short, you’re a hack.
    Reading Glenn’s site over any period of time, can anyone seriously argue that he doesn’t fall into the latter category?

  • http://www.centellas.org/miguel miguel

    I think a more accurate comparison would be between CNN’s Crossfire & Comedy Central’s Crossballs. What’s interesting is that that show is so good at parodying the Crossfire/Hardball format of in-your-face talking points yelling w/o any real substance, that guests hardly know the difference. When a parody is no longer a parody, but merely an example of the real thing, then the “real” thing has collapsed as a value.
    I don’t think Jon Stewart was coping out on his statement. Yes, the Daily Show is now a major player in American politics. But I think Stewart is pointing out that it shouldn’t be this way. CNN, ABC, CBS should *NOT* be taking their cues fom a comedy show. Comedy Central is really just the SNL news skit writ large. If more & more viewers are tuning in to *IT* rather than the MSM punditry, that means there’s something wrong w/ the MSM punditry. I think that’s Stewart’s claim.
    He started as a parody of news shows. But news shows have fallen to the level where it’s become hard to tell the two apart. And that scares Stewart. Heck, it scares me. I’ve seen Stewart as harder hitting questions (he was the only one to directly ask Kerry about Cambodia) on his show. And, yet, I’ve seen him be civil towards people on the right & the left. Stewart mentioned “civil discourse” to the Crossfire dweebs. *THAT’S* what’s lacking in American politics.
    I’m a fairly youngish person (still in my 20s). And I find that more young people (some call them “South Park Republicans”) are no longer interested in the logically convoluted arguments made by both sides. So we turn to Comedy Central for shows like the Daily Show or South Park or Dave Chapell to find comentary that’s more honest.
    Comedy Central, and especially the Daily Show, has become a major player in American political discourse. But it only did so because the existing level is so damned pathetic.

  • http://www.centellas.org/miguel miguel

    A very brief comment on the question of publicly stating our voting preferences (as bloggers): I oppose it, personally, because of my position. I teach at a public university (but not tenured). It’s not a question of being afraid of tenure, it’s a question of my students reading my blog (I certainly don’t advertise it, but Google happens) & later being intimidated in my classes to contradict my bias. I make a strong effort to avoid bias in my classroom, something I wish more faculty did. Posting who I plan to vote for would destroy such efforts. Just a thought.

  • http://blogs.rny.com/sbw/ sbw

    This is a world of ideas. Parties are incidental.
    Far more useful would be a lesson about understanding a fallacy when you see one… or when you are about to propose one.
    99.9% of political bloggorhea would disappear abruptly.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    Tim,
    my apologies, i did not know that jeff’s comments dont allow for the target=new tag that would allow for the link to appear in a new window.
    my honest bloggers quiz appears here
    and as i said jeff linked to glenn’s opinion that he is not partisan in this very post.
    with that said, are you agreeing that glenn is indeed, not partisan despite his fervent defense each day (30+ posts) of not just bush, but of the gop as a whole?

  • Kurt

    There’s a level at which Glenn’s response is fine, but there’s another on which it’s disingenuous, which is this: it’s one thing to honestly state your opinion on a range of different subjects, and if those opinions all tend to favor one candidate or party, well good luck to you.
    It really shouldn’t be that hard to google Instapundit with “stem cell research”, or “drug war”, or “abortion”, or “Trent Lott”, or “FMA”, etc, etc.

  • Andy Freeman

    > with 98% of his 150+ posts a week being written with a strong pro-rnc, anti-dnc, pro-war, anti-kerry stance, it’s difficult for me to agree with his recent opinoin that he is simply supporting candidate bush and not the party as a whole.
    The only way to get to 98% is to argue that the DNC supports UN corruption, genocide in the Sudan, and has some strange position regarding weather and pictures of Tennessee. Does it?
    The rest is simply wrong. Yes, Reynolds is pro-war and supports Bush in sum. However, the “pro-rnc/anti-dnc” label is in accurate – he holds some positions that are in opposition to the rnc and in favor of the dnc.
    Moreover, Reynolds often points out issues where he agrees with Kerry and disagrees with Bush. He even points out issues where he disagrees with Bush without mention of Kerry.

  • http://blogs.rny.com/sbw/ sbw

    Andy: it’s difficult for me to agree with his recent opinoin that he is simply supporting candidate bush and not the party as a whole.
    Glenn can’t stop you from jumping to unwarranted conclusions. You’ll have to learn how to do that yourself.

  • Harry in Atlanta

    I don’t see a problem with Reynolds’ position. I visit his sight regularly and my politics are to his right. The one thing that Reynolds has said over and over again is that this is a “one issue” election for him; the war. And his belief is that Bush would do a much better job than Kerry in that endeavor. From reading his posts I have no reason not to believe him, he has hardly kept it a secret. But I guess people read into things what they are predisposed to want to believe. That’s always easier than admitting to yourself that you’re full of crap and don’t know what the hell you are talking about. It’s a defense mechanism aka denial.

  • Jaybird

    The main part of the problem is not Glenn’s position on various problems, it’s the expectation of the readers.
    Since (too) many of us get our news from blogs, we start having expectations for blogs that we used to have for Uncle Walt on CBS news.
    Insty is just this guy on a webpage. That’s it. It’s the same thing that you or I are doing when we write a comment on Jeff’s blog.
    But since more people read any given Instapundit post than any given comment post, people expect Insty to be something other than a guy writing what he thinks about stuff to a website.
    Dude. All he is is a guy writing what he thinks about stuff to a website.
    Don’t forget that when you log in and you’ll be less irritated when he stacks the deck in favor of one of his pet issues. “He’s just this guy.”
    Let that be your mantra.

  • Lee

    Another response to Instapundit and the struggle of Republicans to vote their party is in Andrew Sullivan’s blog today.
    “WHEN GLENN IS PISSED OFF: He can be really funny. I wish he’d be more abusive at times – of the people who deserve a little slapping around. And I haven’t heard the term “sod off” since I left England. Good for him. But it’s also true that he doesn’t really defend his own pro-Bush sentiments at any length, and he routinely avoids any news that could reflect badly on the president. I’m sure Glenn is aware of the many mistakes in Iraq, but he doesn’t link to them, and seems content merely to link to positive news. That’s his prerogative, of course. And given the bad news emphasis of MSM, defensible. But it is a cocoon of a sort. And his assumptions would be more persuasive with a bit more substantiation at times.”
    When our blogs are not news services but our opinions, we’re entitled to them. But if we don’t say why we hold one opinion or another, or why we’re struggling to come to a conclsuion,, I don’t think we should expect others to respect our opinion or thinking process. So often what we see and do is merely cheerleading and jumping on the bandwagon, both in mainstream media and in the blogosphere.

  • Tim

    Lee,
    Haven’t you now strayed into the linker v. thinker debate?

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    jaybird,
    i agree with your thesis. therefore the guy who is just a guy, should be able to take constructive criticizm and decide what he wants to do with it. ive never said that he is an evil man for only showing good things about the repubs and bad things about the dems, im just saying that as a reader of his blog i would like for him to be a little better.
    one guy to another.
    some have compared this debate with stewart vs cnn. the difference is, i am not saying that glenn is “bad” or that he is hurting america.
    and it all started, as jeff pointed out, with me asking jeff why he is critical of jon stewart and soft on glenn.

  • Jaybird

    Maybe it’s because it’s Stewart’s *JOB* to do what Stewart does while it’s Insty’s *HOBBY* to do what Insty does?
    That’s one distinction that I was able to come up with in less than a second.
    If I worked, I’m sure I could find more.
    I sincerely don’t think that Instapundit would write significantly differently if he only got, say, Lonewacko’s monthly numbers.

  • Dishman

    from dictionary.com:
    par

  • http://www.musingsofafatkid.blogspot.com fat kid

    Honestly, how in the hell did O.Willis even get *into* this conversation? I mean, Glenn kind of dwarfs this blog in terms of traffic, and Jeff pretyt much dwarves Willis – so, what gives? I mean, if anybody can just elbow their way into a conversation to stir up traffic… ;) Oh, wait.
    Disclaimer: I’m a conservative partisan jingo-facist bush-loving kedwards-loathing proud-to-be-an-American hack.
    Disclaimer #2: LONG LIVE ACE.

  • Rob

    The Glenn/Stewart analogy would only work if Insty showed up to teach a law class and instead delivered a classless, petulant indictment of his hosts. I’m not a fan of Carlson, Begala, or anyone else on the show, but I’m thinking they booked Stewart as a comic, with good reason. He can be very funny.
    I’ve watched TDS, daily, since Sports Boy was the host, and you can definitely see it trending leftwards over the past few years. This wouldn’t be a problem if the humor was there, but lately it’s been shrouded under the “W is responsible for all the world’s ills” ranting. Satire works best if it skewers everything without taking an obvious side- a la The Simpsons, South Park, etc.

  • Cog

    Oliver Willis is like Jon Stewart minus the humor, tact, grace, and grasp of the issues.
    Crossfire being lectured by Jon Stewart is not funny, but anyone being lectured by O Willis actually is amusing.

  • ed

    Here is why I find Instapundit just a bit infuriating. Today he has a post that reads like a bit of news. Not tongue in cheek. Not sarcastic at all.
    Here’s the post: “EFFORTS TO KEEP STOLEN HONOR off the air would seem to be backfiring: ‘John Kerry Tried to Stop You From Seeing This Film.’”
    Now ok, when I click this I expect to read a story on Sinclair promotion of the film. Instead, it is a link to a Newsmax promotion, selling the DVD.
    What!?
    So wait, efforts are backfiring? Sure, because Instapundit is hawking the DVD on his website. That is the story.
    Newmax meanwhile, offers no info but the DVD itself.
    So yeah, Instapundit does seem to go out of its way to look like it is offering some news when instead it is in fact making the news.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    dishman,
    so 30+ posts a day fanboying the Right isnt fervent? then what is? 50?
    he isnt devoted? not mentioning bad days, bad weeks, bad moments in this administration isnt devoted?
    when the 4 republican senators came out against bush the same week that the 1,000 page report said that there were no wmd or anything close to nukes in iraq – and glenn linked none of that – thats not devotion to a party or a cause?
    im willing to accept it isnt if you show me what is.

  • Andy Freeman

    > im just saying that as a reader of his blog i would like for him to be a little better.
    Yup, some of you are bitching about free ice cream. Twain was correct about the big difference between dog and man.
    > thats not devotion to a party or a cause?
    No, it’s not.
    > im willing to accept it isnt if you show me what is.
    It’s writing about what interests him.
    Does Willis have an obligation to write about what interests me? If not, is that because:
    (1) I’ve got the wrong views.
    (2) Willis isn’t Reynolds and Reynolds has a special obligation.
    If (2), please describe the obligation, its basis, and list others who have similar obligations.
    BTW – No MSM outlet has an obligation to cover what you’d like either.
    I am still waiting for Willis to either retract his 98% accusation or admit that the DNC is pro-UN corruption, genocide in the Sudan, and describe the DNC’s position wrt weather and pictures of Tennessee.

  • http://swankette.blogspot.com Michelle

    I believe my vote is going to Olympia, Washington, the state capitol, where the ballots will be counted.
    As to who/what my votes will be for/against: if you read my blog you will be able to figure out my opinion on some matters, on other matters I choose not to say. If I profess explicitly who I am voting for, then people who disagree with my candidate of choice are more likely to read what I have to say.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    andy, this has never been about obligation. i agree that these are all hobbies. regardless of what any of us make from our ads, its not a full-time gig and therefore a hobby. if some can make a few bucks or tens of thousands of dollars is beside the point.
    odub isnt obligated to cover anything in particular nor am i nor is mr. jarvis.
    all this is is me pointing out the obvious, which is the fact that glenn hides behind all of your defenses and that of his not being a “news service” while simultaneously bashing those who arent always completely 100% fair themselves.
    you cant have it both ways without expecting a little criticism back.
    i will be happy to retract my 98%, but not on your grounds because they are ridiculous. for the sake of conviencence (and laziness because neither i nor anyone would want to actually count glenn’s admirable work) lets agree that 90% of his posts are positive rnc spin and negative dnc spin. even with that number he has never come out strongly toward any Real rnc failures during the last two years (not finding wmd, not finding obl, the deficit, the debates, bush’s military record ad nasueum) and if thats not being a right wing fanboy partisan than youre not being honest with yourself.
    although i do admire your persistence.
    ultimately i dont think it’s too much for one blogger to another to ask for a little bit of truthfulness in ones biases and an acknowledgement to the party that one supports.
    in the last 24 hours glenn has done half of this – after much tooth-pulling and debate. regardless of all of the support from you all and his minions, the question still remains: why is he ashamed to call himself a republican?

  • Tim

    > im just saying that as a reader of his blog i would like for him to be a little better.
    Yeah, and people of the world would like Americans to be a little better.
    They still don’t get a vote.

  • Dishman

    “why is he ashamed to call himself a republican?”
    That’s no more reasonable a question than “Are you still a member of the Communist Party?”
    Maybe he’s not.
    Based on both his statement and the positions he takes on a lot of things, I believe him when he says he isn’t.
    Maybe he should be a Republican. That’s another matter entirely. That arguement could also be applied to Jeff as well… or Roger L. Simon.. or others.
    If you intent is to drive everyone who doesn’t match your ideology into the Republican Party, then please, have at. I don’t think you’d like the results nearly as much as I would.

  • Joe Baby

    Again, the GOP label might fit Insta a bit better if he wasn’t pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, and pro-drug legalization.
    There are probably even more diversions from the party line, if people took the time to put down turn off their partisan antennae and read his posts.

  • http://jimtreacher.com Jim Treacher

    I’m just amazed that Reynolds stops beating his wife long enough to blog that much every day.

  • Insuffiently Sensitive

    It may be difficult for you grown-ups to stop quibbling on whether Glenn Reynolds is one of them evil Republicans, but in between your blasts and counterblasts this kid wants to insert a modest Item, which is:
    Them who thinks blogs are not news providers are full of hooey. The most valuable news they provide are the parts that the MSM omits in its carefully crafted stories, in its mission to ‘shape the dialogue’ or ‘set the agenda’ or ‘make a difference’ in the direction preferred by the tribal elders of the MSM.
    Bloggers may find these missing parts in other publications, or from owning brains and experience not available to journalists, or from weighing evidence found in MSM stories themselves – for example, the instant recognition of CBS’s fake TANG memos. And by reading enough of these opinionated and perceptive bloggists, we citizens for the first time in decades are able to piece together the WHOLE STORY IN PERSPECTIVE -in which MSM has provided a very flawed performance for decades.
    So they are news providers, like it or not.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    and the ones who post thousands of pro-bush anti-kerry posts a year are republicans ;P

  • http://lonewacko.com The Lonewacko Blog

    This doesn’t appear to be about biases, but nevertheless:
    I suggest conservatives who are in states that matter vote for… Kerry. I think divided government is an acceptable alternative to a president I find unacceptable for various reasons.
    If you’re in a state that doesn’t matter (like in my case California), write in Tom Tancredo. Yes, I know he doesn’t want you doing that, but do it anyway.
    If I lived in the San Gabriel Valley, I’d participate in John & Ken’s Political Human Sacrifice, voting for Cynthia Matthews and for Ed Laning. If you live in an area where your GOP is of the cheap-labor/walled-compound variety, consider conducting your own local version of the Political Human Sacrifice.
    I’d vote the propositions the same way as John & Ken except for the DNA prop on privacy grounds because of its 2009 provision.
    If I lived in Utah’s Third District, I would vote for Udai Hussein if he was running against Chris Cannon.

  • http://lonewacko.com The Lonewacko Blog

    This doesn’t appear to be about biases, but nevertheless:
    I suggest conservatives who are in states that matter vote for… Kerry. I think divided government is an acceptable alternative to a president I find unacceptable for various reasons.
    If you’re in a state that doesn’t matter (like in my case California), write in Tom Tancredo. Yes, I know he doesn’t want you doing that, but do it anyway.
    If I lived in the San Gabriel Valley, I’d participate in John & Ken’s Political Human Sacrifice, voting for Cynthia Matthews and for Ed Laning. If you live in an area where your GOP is of the cheap-labor/walled-compound variety, consider conducting your own local version of the Political Human Sacrifice.
    I’d vote the propositions the same way as John & Ken except for the DNA prop on privacy grounds because of its 2009 provision.
    If I lived in Utah’s Third District, I would vote for Udai Hussein if he was running against Chris Cannon.

  • Andy Freeman

    > andy, this has never been about obligation.
    Yes, it is. “Obligation” is shorthand for the end of sentences that start something like “Reynolds should …” and “It’s wrong for Reynolds to ….”
    > but not on your grounds because they are ridiculous.
    Since those grounds demonstrated that the number 98% is wrong…. Or, does Willis think that it’s unfair/wrong to pay attention to what he writes?
    The fact that Reynolds doesn’t post Willis’ talking points doesn’t make Reynolds an RNC stooge.
    However, let’s ask the question – has Willis posted any substantive disagreement with the DNC? (“Kerry should be more aggressive” is not substantive disagreement.) Heck – how many DNC talking points hasn’t Willis featured?
    > in the last 24 hours glenn has done half of this
    Getting Reynolds to “admit” that he only posts what he’s interested in is no feat. He’s done so several times since 2001.
    Does Willis post things that he’s not interested in? (I include “paid to post” in that.)
    BTW – Why does Willis want Reynolds to be a Republican? Surely Willis isn’t going for ad hominem?

  • Dishman

    “and the ones who post thousands of pro-bush anti-kerry posts a year are republicans ;P”
    Ed Koch and Zell Miller are out campaigning for Bush. Via Roger L. Simon, http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/30444.htm Joe Lieberman may well be a Republican, too.
    I don’t thing trying to force people to accept the labels you like is a good idea. On second thought, as Napoleon said, my interruption is rude.

  • Dishman

    On second thought, I can’t let that stand.
    Tony, you and I both want Glenn to be a Republican. As I see it, the difference is that I believe it’s Glenn’s call, and you seem to believe it’s yours.
    Please tell me I’ve misunderstood.

  • http://kerryhaters.blogspot.com Pat Curley

    Hmmm, admit your bias, but if you wear your bias on your sleeve (ala Crush Kerry), I’ll ignore what you say? Did it ever occur to you that may be why some folks don’t admit their bias?