Testing blog mettle

Testing blog mettle

: Think of the next 11 weeks until the election as a challenge: as a test of weblogs’ real value:

When we wake up after the election, will we be able to point to the ways and posts in which this new medium contributed, or at least tried to contribute, to improving the coverage of the campaign and the policies of the candidates and the wisdom of the electorate? Will we have made a difference at all? Or will we have made it worse?

Did we push the coverage and the candidates in ways that mattered? Or did we wallow in mud?

Now is our opportunity to show what we can do. So what can we do?

I am blogs’ biggest booster, blathering on to any who unfortunate enough to listen about the power of citizens’ media.

But I also have to say that I’ve been a bit disheartened in recent days by the incessant gotchaism of some blogs and more commenters in our new medium.

OK, we’re human. And we’re independent. Bloggers have opinions and the means to share them. A blogger is under no obligation or expectation from anyone else to fix the world or do journalism’s job or cure its ills or, Lord knows, to repair politics. You want to say — and say again — that you think Bush/Kerry is a liar or stupid or a flip-flopper or frightening or incompetent, great: Have at it. Pluck the low-hanging fruit of democracy.

But we also say that blogs gives us all an opportunity to present a new viewpoint and to bring together information from disparate sources and to turn news and campaigns and even government into conversations and to improve them.

So are we?

I’m not talking just about the Swifies or the Mooreites, so don’t get mired in all that. And I’m certainly not trying to say that I’m any paragon of value or virtue myself, so spare us your sputting comments; I’m no expert in health care and that’s why I wish wiser bloggers than me would illuminate the subject. And as I say in another post today, I also don’t want to find this wallowing in another roundabout about character.

I hope that what we can contribute is better conversation and debate and information and questions about the issues that affect our lives and our world. I hope that we can contribute is a better gauge of what citizens are saying. I hope that what we can contribute is a push to improve campaigning and coverage of it.

So here’s my challenge: As you see examples — on the blogs you read or the blogs you write — of posts that in any way improve this campaign, save them. When it’s over, on the morning after, I’ll ask again. And then let’s assess our value.

We bloggers are all quick to judge mainstream media. Shouldn’t we turn the same spotlight on ourselves?

16 responses to “Testing blog mettle”

  1. GCW Avatar

    Most blogs are pretty good. Some seem only to preach to the faithful, and have built up a culture of very nasty comments. Those mean comments do nothing to further the debate, nothing to convince the other side.
    Blogs are at their best when they welcome people who don’t necessarily agree, and give them some reasons to change their mind.

  2. anne.elk Avatar
    anne.elk

    But I also have to say that I’ve been a bit disheartened in recent days by the incessant gotchaism of some blogs and more commenters in our new medium.
    Jeff, heal theyself.

  3. Robert McClelland Avatar

    Shouldn’t we turn the same spotlight on ourselves?
    I do this all the time but the right whingers start crying and then ban me.
    But if you’re serious about this, why don’t you start by giving us all an honest assessment of Instarube’s contribution to the political dialogue.

  4. Andrea Harris Avatar

    Robert, people ban you because you are an obnoxious asshole who calls everyone names. This debate is for grownups only.

  5. Matthew Goggins Avatar
    Matthew Goggins

    Jeff:
    A lot of your angst about the blogging of politics seems to stem from what you have called “cheap shot” politics.
    Why do bloggers dig up the dirt and throw names at their opponents, often with great zeal and relish?
    Well, bloggers are just people after all, and part of human nature is to play childish games of gotcha, or try to win a screaming contest with someone you don’t like.
    When this happens, the nut-and-bolts issues go more or less unexamined, and negative passions can flare up and create all kinds of mischief.
    But I think there is a time and a place for cheap-shot politics.
    Now a true cheap shot would seem to require a certain amount of bad faith, a certain casual disregard for strict truthfulness, and a certain amount of disregard for whom gets hurt.
    But how about a cheap shot that raises questions about the truth of what a candidate says, about what a candidate highlights as central to his campaign? What if that cheap-shot is made with high regard for truthfulness, for standards of evidence, for relevance, and for decency?
    Well then, “cheap shot” is probably not the best way to call it. “Accountability attack” sums up the meaning well, but doesn’t flow well off the tongue. “Truth torpedo” is a lot catchier, but it may be too violent a metaphor. I think a good phrase to use would be “reality checking”.
    For instance, consider an interview with down-sized factory workers that also includes some useful context, or a documentary that uses footage of war carnage to carefully expose a hidden side of warfare: some people might see “cheap shots” at work, but these are actually good examples of “reality checking”.
    About the Swift Boat Vets and the related blog-activity:
    Let’s say 60 million people end up casting votes in the November presidential election. Let’s say the Swift Boat Vets’ brief against John Kerry causes 3 million people to not vote at all, causes 2 million people to switch their votes from Kerry to Bush, and causes 1 million people to vote for Bush who weren’t going to vote at all.
    Is this a happy ending, or a sad ending? Does the answer change, depending on whether or not Kerry wins? Does the answer change, depending on whether the Swift Boat charges are 10%, 50%, or 95% accurate? Does the answer change, depending on how well-informed the voters are on all the other issues?
    I have answers to these questions, but I think the questions are more interesting than my answers.

  6. David Crisp Avatar

    I don’t want to get mired in the Swift Boats battle either, but it might be pertinent to this discussion to note that several pieces of conventional wisdom about the controversy have arisen in quadrants of the blogosphere, and all of them are suspect:
    1. Bloggers have covered the story better than the big media. You quoted my post the other day asking for bloggers who have provided balanced and thorough accounts. The list of suggested bloggers provided by commenters was extraordinarily short.
    2. Big media covered the story only after bloggers goaded them into it. I can’t know what’s in the hearts and minds of editors, but all of the big dailies had major stories within a couple of weeks after the ads started airing. This might have been too slow a response if the stories that finally appeared had been simple “he-said-she-said” accounts. But they were all substantive, with fresh reporting and new information. That kind of work takes time, and it is in the best tradition of American politial journalism.
    3. The Bush-AWOL controversy received far more coverage in the big media. The Bush-AWOL story got play early this year only after Dick McAuliffe made it an issue (and Wesley Clark failed to). If Marc Racicot were to make an allegation today similar to McAuliffe’s – say, for instance, that Kerry should be stripped of his medals – it would be all over the news. The proper point of comparison should be coverage of Bush’s service in 2000. I haven’t done the research, but I’d bet a nickel that Kerry has gotten far more coverage now than Bush did then.
    4. Big media continue to ignore the Cambodia aspect of the story because it is the point on which Kerry is most vulnerable. But I can’t imagine that anyone who first examined these allegations would conclude that Cambodia was the most important part. Certainly bloggers played up the medals controversy first, just as big media have. Anti-Kerry bloggers shifted their focus to Cambodia only after it became clear that at least some of the medals allegations would remain forever muddled. But the Cambodia allegations are not equally important. If Kerry is lying about the medals, then he is a self-aggrandizing opportunist who sold out his buddies for an early trip home — a serious charge. If he is wrong about Cambodia, then he is, at worst, overreaching to make a rhetorical point — in short, just another lying politician. Obviously, that story comes last.
    Your call for self-criticism in the blogosphere is welcome and long overdue.

  7. Jayme Avatar

    The election results in many states will be unverifiable due to the widespread use of electronic voting machines. We are an internet savvy community of connected users across states and have not risen up to force paper backups or some kind of universal standards for these machines. In Flordia they aren’t even testing their machines for fear of lending credence to the real concerns of activists. We should do something and do it now! My guess is history will judge us poorly for not seeing the problem coming!

  8. Robert McClelland Avatar

    Andrea says “obnoxious asshole who calls everyone names”
    Fans of irony take note.

  9. Robert McClelland Avatar

    The Bush-AWOL controversy received far more coverage in the big media.
    Yes, but that was made up by the same amount of coverage being given to the “Kerry threw his medals away” controversy earlier this year. Or did you forget about that?

  10. GCW Avatar

    Robert, even after my first post, you jumped in with the pointlessly inflammatory words,
    whingers
    crying
    Instarube
    Why do you use words like this? Do you think those words help your cause? They don’t.
    This is one of the worst parts of the blogosphere.
    As far as how to fix it? Slashdot’s karma and moderation system seems to be the best distributed-work system out there. Perhaps a merger of they TypePad with a Slashdot-based moderation/meta-moderation/karma system could really improve our conversations.

  11. GCW Avatar

    Make that TypeKey, rather than TypePad.

  12. Andrea Harris Avatar

    Robert’s only cause is drawing attention to himself, thus the childish mud-flinging and the pseudo-clever retorts that make up his portfolio. He has a blog somewhere too but it’s crashingly dull, not even as entertaining (in a crude, peasant-humor way) as his comments on other peoples’ blogs.

  13. Andrea Harris Avatar

    GCW: Jeff could easily have his blog Typekey-registration-enabled by upgrading to MT 3.0 — it’s free for one user.

  14. midwich Avatar

    I am genuinely depressed to conclude that Jeff has lost it. “…Swifies [sic] or the Mooreites..” indeed, as if they are equivalent in some fashion. Jeff has stubbornly refused to examine the Swift Boat Veterans’ claims carefully even ONCE that I’m aware of, let alone the more recent POW’s claims. The reasons why their claims self-evidently matter tremendously are all too obvious to reshash here.
    Stubborness is about the size of it. I have a horrible feeling that Jeff likes to feel at the centre of the blogging world, but feels a bit left behind on the most critical storm to have hit the blogosphere, and he has no idea how to backtrack at this point. Like so many of us, he can be a bit stubborn sometimes.
    Given his 911 experiences I’ve given Jeff huge amounts of slack with barely a moment’s hesitation (Daily Stern anyone?), but really – he needs desperately to do the proverbial 180 on this issue, and just be honest about it. That, I thought was what sets blogging apart from mainstream media. I for one would greatly respect such a turnaround. He’s only human, presumably ;)

  15. Dean Esmay Avatar

    Yeah, I kinda lost it on the “Swifties/Mooreites” comparison too. We know Moore’s dishonest. I’m sorry, we don’t know that the Swifties are. Some think they are, but that requires investigations that a lot of us were appalled to see the mainstream media simply not doing. Indeed, they went off into the tall grass of “who’s giving them money” before even bothering to ask “is what they say true?”
    You can blame two things for the Swifties thing: John Kerry, for making Vietnam the center of his campaign, and the mainstream media, for a shocking lack of decent handling of an important story.
    Now, is there more that weblogs should be talking about? I would agree that there is much reason to worry about electronic voting machines, but to be honest this is something that’s hard for webloggers to report on. I mean, how do we go about it? It’s a story I’m interested in but I don’t even know where to start looking. And with the election only 11 weeks away it’s almost certainly too late to do much about it. I’ve always thought these electornic machines sucked. We should stick with paper ballots and punch cards, but that’s what people who still suffer under the illusion that Gore “really” won Florida least want. So what else can be done? It’s foolish as hell but what can be said that wont’ raise falls accusations from still-wounded Gore partisans?
    We know, more or less, what the candidates’ positions are, and what their record is. Many of us are shocked at how much Kerry’s own record hasn’t been brought forth and scrutinized. But you know, what else is there to cover at this point?
    Seriously Jeff, I’d like to know. What aren’t we covering that we should?

  16. Andrew Avatar

    There’s another aspect to what people tend to blog about: what draws traffic. Plenty of bloggers (OK, probably all of us) want to see people pay attention to what we write. But how do you do that? It would be nice to believe that if you write balanced essays that carefully examine real issues, you would draw people to your site, but that’s not how the world works. In reality, you’re most likely to get traffic if you say things that lots of people already agree with. Take a look at the big hitters in the blogosphere, according to TTLB:
    1. Instapundit.com
    2.lgf: who blow up da owl?
    3.Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall
    4.Daily Kos
    5.Eschaton
    6.Power Line
    7.DRUDGE REPORT 2004