My, my

My, my

: The minor dustup between Glenn Reynolds and Tony Pierce over blogger bias that began playing itself out here (and here, then here and here) has been covered and quoted extensively by Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post today. Glenn responds here to Andrew Sullivan’s criticism here about lacking fire: “I’ve actually tried quite consciously to moderate my tone in the run-up to the elections, because I think that there’s quite enough abuse out there.” I’ve noticed that lately on Instapundit and I’ve been damned glad to see it. Actually, I think Glenn has returned to his natural self, having banished the angry Glenn with a few stiff drinks.

  • paul a’barge

    Maybe if you read WHAT Glenn has been writing, instead of writhing about over HOW he says it, you’d realize that there is a basic point out there …. Kerry sucks for America, and Glenn, like most of the rest of us, is not voting for him.

  • A Reader

    I just don’t understand why people like that Tony guy and oliver guy give a hoot about what someone else does. Why all the InstaHate? Seems like there was a meeting at David Brocks and the order went out to bring him down or something. I just dont get it, it’s reynolds site he can say whatever he wants and people seem to like it*
    * and he doesnt even have to take George Soros $$$

  • Lee

    I didn’t read hate in the Glenn/Tony/Oliver debate.
    In any case, Kurtz’s coverage suggests, Jeff, that Howard is starting to “get it” about blogs.
    Whether blogs continue to get MSM coverage probably depends on a) what we bloggers do with what Glenn poetically calls our pointilist dots; and b) whether meainstream media has anything else to talk about.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com/blog/bloggy.htm tony

    its not about hate, a. reader, read any of my follow-ups and i point that out as clearly as i can.
    and lee, i agree, i think it’s great if the msm starts paying attention to blogs, even on little inside-baseball debates such as this.

  • http://jimtreacher.com Jim Treacher

    Whoa. And in the same column Kurtz also linked to Dana Stevens, who in turn linked to “the blogosphere.” (Well, to me, which is sort of the same thing… no?) Although Kurtz didn’t pick up any of her links. Curses! [twirls mustache] Still, let’s hear it for blogs.

  • A Reader

    Yeah, maybe “hate” is not the right word. Sorry about that.
    but I just don’t get the “why it bothers you so much” and “why it bothers you so much right now”.
    He’s been around for years and it just seemed like you woke up one day and BAM!
    I mean he could post images of fornicating monkeys all day. It’s his blog, who cares. you know what i mean?

  • Andy Freeman

    > its not about hate, a. reader, read any of my follow-ups and i point that out as clearly as i can.
    It’s about Willis insisting that Reynolds behave as Willis would like. We’re waiting for Willis to explain why Reynolds should do so. Does Willis have a similar obligation to someone else?
    We’re also waiting for Willis to explain why he wants Reynolds to “admit that he’s a Republican”.
    Willis’ insistence that anyone who doesn’t post about Republicans as Willis would like is an RNC stooge is both wrong and rich given Willis’ parrotting of DNC talking points.

  • pianoman

    When is Willis going to demand that Sully “admit that he’s a Democrat”? Isn’t Sully more of a “legitimate” journalist than Glenn? Doesn’t Sully have *more* of an obligation to be bias-free?
    I agree with A.R. about the suddenness angle too. Why *now* is Glenn’s bias a problem?
    Wouldn’t have anything to do with the election coming up, would it? Nah.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    the now was due to the fact that Jeff was on Jon Stewart’s tail for hiding behind his “but im a comedy show” excuse, and i asked him in these comments why he allows his buddy Glenn to hide behind his “im not a news service” when he refuses to even talk about Anything negative regarding the Right.
    trust me, no way did i expect this to turn into what it did turn into. i was just commenting in the buzzmachine the same way i am commenting now.
    also, ive read glenn for years. if anyone has changed as we’ve gotten closer to the elections its him, not me.

  • http://cellar.org Undertoad

    Tony, you have way too many pics of cute chicks on your site. You should balance it out with some shots of ugly ones.
    j/k

  • Lee

    pianoman, Sullivan has been clear he’s a conservative– and where he differs from the Pres. is pretty strictly on these lines, certainly in fiscal terms. Where he differs most obviously is with the Pres.’ arguably reactionary social positions (gay issues notably). Still, there, Sully argues (if not altogether convincingly to me) from a conservative viewpoint. His struggle in this election has been as open as anyone’s and, frankly, more honest.
    As for Oliver’s statement that Glenn should somehow admit he’s a Republican, Oliver is conflating terms there. It’s just wrong to suggest that anyone who would support Bush is necessarily a partisan Republican– just as the reverse is untrue. And there are positions in between.
    e.g., lunched with my Dad today. Dad’s voted Republican in Pres. elections since 1980 (about 50% in other elections, from what I can tell. We usually discuss this.) This year, he says he’ll vote for Kerry, mostly because he’s very unhappy with the Pres. He’s a registered Independent. (He’s still mad he didn’t get to vote for McCain in 2000).
    Back to Glenn: Glenn’s most identifiable as a libertarian. Part of the late 20th and early 21st c. Republican or Republican-leaning coalition has in fact included libertarians; but it’s not the same. Woe if all Democrats make that mistake!

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    undertoad,
    thats classic!

  • A Reader

    Fair enough Tony.
    Thanks for replying and answering my Q’s

  • pianoman

    Lee: Sully was a “conservative” until gay marriage was stuffed up into the electorate’s face. Then all of a sudden Bush was a “stooge of the Christian Religious Right”.
    To be in support of gay marriage is hardly a “conservative” position.
    Following his conversion, Sully branched out into complaints about anything going bad in Iraq. These three planks (gay marriage; Bush is a tool of the CRR; Iraq is a complete CF) have formed the core of Sully’s opposition. His “struggle” as you put it, has been nonexistent, as far as I can see.
    BTW, nearly all polls and election results demonstrate that opposition to gay marriage isn’t “reactionary”. Far from it.
    As for Glenn, I think your characterization is mostly right: he’s a lower-case libertarian. (Upper-case is reserved for loons like Badnarik.)

  • Andy Freeman

    In other words, the reason for taking an unfair shot at Reynolds is that Jarvis took an unfair shot at Stewart.
    Wowsers.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    in other words if it was completely unfounded it wouldnt have had any legs whatsoever
    in other words it was a comment that ended up a day later in the washington post.

  • Craig

    If you want me to care that instapundit is biased, show me where he’s claimed that he isn’t. Where he says he’s providing a general news service, as opposed to just his opinions, and links to sites/posts he finds interesting.
    The thrust of your complaints seems to be “Glenn’s providing a one-sided look at the world through the prism of his own beliefs, just like he says he is!”.
    Now, that might be news to people that don’t read him much, or don’t follow his links to other people (including current main-page post-links to likely non-Bush voters like Jarvis (multiple), Sullivan, Slate (not many pro-Bush folks there), & Kevin Drum, as well as sidebar links to Hit & Run, Alterman, Kaus, Josh Marshall, Tapped, Drezner, Kleiman, Layne, Oliver Willis….) to see that other opinions exist.
    One wonders if the problem is that he doesn’t link to those that disagree with him in general, or that he doesn’t link to you…
    Oh, and are you really going to base your defence on ‘the mainstream media would never, ever pick up on an unfounded allegation’?

  • A Guy

    Tony Pierce has called President Bush a “retard”. He expressed his pleasure at Reagan’s passing. Mr. Pierce writes opinions like a 12 year old. He can be entertaining, but when he steps over the line like the “retard” crack….well he is just one more reason the blogosphere can’t gain the respect it deserves.

  • Andy Freeman

    > in other words if it was completely unfounded it wouldnt have had any legs whatsoever
    The “legs” test also tells us that Kerry will give France a veto wrt US foreign policy and defense.
    The “legs” test also tells us that women at Augusta National is a big issue.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    calling the president a retard (when he clearly is) is going over the line?
    interesting.

  • http://hubris.typepad.com Hubris

    tony,
    the now was due to the fact that Jeff was on Jon Stewart’s tail for hiding behind his “but im a comedy show” excuse, and i asked him in these comments why he allows his buddy Glenn to hide behind his “im not a news service” when he refuses to even talk about Anything negative regarding the Right.
    The difference is that Reynolds isn’t trying to have it both ways. Stewart wants to be able to voice serious criticism, then defend himself by saying it’s just a comedy show. Reynolds is just saying – I ain’t a news service. He doesn’t then try to claim he is a news service. He isn’t trying to have his cake and eat it too. He’s just eating his cake.
    People perceive Reynolds as moderate because (a) he has freely admitted he disagrees with Bush on a lot of things, such as abortion and bioethics, but supports him because of the war and (b) his tone is relatively mild (yes, he does link to some whose tone is not, but so what).
    It’s also unfair, I think, to make the “buddy” reference when questioning Jeff, since he has not hesitated to criticize Reynolds in the past.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    hubris,
    glenn is, indeed, trying to have it both ways, and good for him for trying.
    if in fact he does disagree with Bush on “a lot” of things, why is it that his posts contradict that. i have challenged others to find me two posts in a row critical of this administration and i have yet to see it.
    i know glenn says hes pro-drug legalization, pro-gay marriage, abortion, etc., but it’s one thing to say it as an aside and a far different thing to back it up in post after post after post the way he can certainly do when he is truly passionate about things dear to the rnc talking points (pro-swifties, anti-rather, anti-joe wilson, etc.)
    scanning his blog you’d truly never get a hint that he has any disagreement with the bush administration which puts into question whether he’s being forthright about the above disagreements or if those are just a smokescreen (“dont tell me im a shill for the repubs, im pro-weed”).
    for the record, i dont think they are a smokescreen, but he has a curious way of poking his pinkie toe into the water of bush-criticism every blue moon while having no problem doing a cannonball all over the Left. which is why i am glad that he admitted his bias for the record.
    but he is hiding behind his “news service” excuse in exactly the same way that stewart his hiding behind his and jeff was very diplomatic when he agreed on this point, because jeff is a gentleman. which is why we like him.
    me, im just right.
    :)

  • http://hubris.typepad.com Hubris

    tony,
    Thanks for the response.
    I think that bloggers tend to fill a niche, even if unconsciously. I don’t mean to speak for him, but Reynolds probably doesn’t feel a need to criticize Bush on those other issues because other blogs (e.g. Eschaton) provide more than enough commentary in that regard.
    Reynolds isn’t NBC, so why should he feel compelled to have two posts in a row that are critical of Bush? Also, I think it’s a tad disengenuous to dismiss his interest in “talking points.” They only become mere “talking points,” as opposed to issues, when we disagree with the positions.
    While he’s more of a “thinker” than a “linker,” I think Kevin Drum is sort of the liberal version of Reynolds. I find him moderate in tone, intellectually honest, etc. He blogged the Bush ANG story to death, and doesn’t make a point of emphasizing his differences with Kerry constantly, but I don’t feel a need to criticize his preferences.
    And I thought I was always right. Unstoppable force versus immoveable object? ;)