Yeah, well, so is this place. Only I get snarked for it by MSM journalists, but when the NYT does it... hey, that's just "hard choices" and "holding people accountable..."
Yesterday, I posted a link to this bit over at Stop The ACLU on the topic of ad rates at the NYT's., which Jay has updated since I posted it.
Late yesterday, MoveOn.org issued this statement, in re: The Ad...
Now that the Times has revealed this mistake for the first time, and while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad. We will therefore wire the $77,083 difference to the Times tomorrow (Monday, September 24, 2007).We call on Mayor Giuliani, who received exactly the same ad deal for the same price, to pay the corrected fee also.
As ever, the story is more complicated than it initially appears. But the bottom line is why are the major organs of the MSM compelled to either a) lie about it, or, b) delude themselves that they aren't biased in their coverage and slant? It's hard not to be, when true diversity - that of outlook, not hue or genetics - is glaringly absent. It's easy to see yourself as balanced and mainstream when you're surrounded by a bunch of people who may not look like you, but pretty much share your values and outlook, after all, everybody you talk to agrees that's the case.
That's one reason I encourage and support the Castle Contrarian Corps and don't just immediately squash dissenting commenters, as long as they adhere to The Rulez for commenting. Now, surely, views that dissent too widely from the norm, whether from a Stalinist or Hitlerian perspective on the political perspective, aren't going to last too long around here. But one of the things I chartered Ry to do formally for us here was link to the websites that most of us aren't going to visit on our own - so that those who hang here, if they've the gumption to click the links, can go peer into other places and get other views. Which may just reinforce your already held views - or may change them a bit, or at least make you think - if only to come up with counters.
So, what's the point of this rant? This bit from the intro: I get snarked for it by MSM journalists
Dan Froomkin, writing at the Washington Post, snarked the milblogger visit there of a couple of weeks ago.
Mr. Froomkin classified us thusly:
Bush didn't have to go out of his way on Friday to endear himself to his guests, who had been screened for sycophancy.And as their ensuing blog posts make clear, they lapped up even his most timeworn talking points and hoariest stories.
Like anyone expected this was going to be hard-hitting journalism, sycophancy is still a harsh charge - and, unsurprisingly, shows that Mr. Froomkin is not deeply immersed in the Castle, at any rate. Which is fair - his article on the meeting with President Bush is the first time I'd ever read him, either... But that's the nature of the interaction between the New Media and the Old, drive-by snarkage all over.
And yeah, I was impressed that I was asked to spend an hour with the President of the United States, and Mr. Froomkin is annoyed that I didn't take that opportunity to be... Mr. Froomkin.
I sent Mr. Froomkin a note.
Dan - at least you mentioned and linked me! Blogger heaven, right?You're right - the President didn't offer up much in the way of true newsy stuff, and I at least wasn't naive enough to expect that he was going to. Nor, really were most of us. My sense of things was that the White House communications crowd were trying to give some props to people they see as a generally friendly (though we aren't all, I ragged on Rumsfeld through most of his tenure) and told the President that I was not a fan of invading Iraq as preface to my question on the subject.
But you get big props from me for quoting with attribution and linking... which is more that I can say for Abramowitz!
We aren't the rubber stamps we appear to be, nor is the milblogging community as homogeneous as it might appear.
But since most of us exist as a counterpoint to what we see as the MSM viewpoint, we do, therefore, tend to present things in a different light.
Myself, I try to tell the stories not told - and no, I don't focus on the negative ones - why? Because the MSM is going to that, it sells papers, on-air advertising, supports the narrative, and the MSM is a business, with only so many column-inches and air-time to work with.
I don't suffer that constraint, in a sense, so I try to tell the stories not told, present the views not heard, which support my retired soldier narrative.
Unlike some of my fellow, higher-traffic bloggers, I know I'm not going to supplant the MSM, nor do I even want to try. I complement, contrast, and do some fact checking now and again, within my areas of personal expertise.
And did you know that one of the people at that meeting serves on an advisory committee to a Democrat Representative?
I bet you didn't.
Cheers,
John
Mr. Froomkin responded.
Thanks for the classy reply. I admire a lot of what milbloggers do, and I'm glad you exist.
I just think the president should spend more time with people who represent the views of the majority of the American people and will hold him accountable.
All the best,
Dan
To which my response is - Like he doesn't get that input every day, from the MSM, from Congress, from MoveOn.Org, Code Pink, etc. Let's get real. So, the President decided to host a friendlier audience. From whom he heard - his soldiers are fighting hard, and having some success with General Petraeus' approach. From whom he heard - what are we going to do with military health care and the VA to take care of the aftermath of combat, which is going to take a generation? How are we *not* going to have another "Bonus Army" situation (ironically, the Bonus Army was the impetus for the formation of the Veteran's Administration), in this case, especially dealing with the traumatic brain injured troops? Why have we not done more to mobilize the country for the war - if not the people, then the components of the industrial base that supply war materiel? To that, the President gave what I felt was probably his weakest answer, full, frankly, of platitudes. I've got my own ideas on how we've found ourselves in that situation, but that's probably a post for a different time.
The questions from the milbloggers were predictable milblogger questions, focused on our area of interest, from our viewpoint - just as if Mr. Bush had pulled in a bunch of car bloggers, they would have probably asked questions about... Detroit, CAFE standards, etc, from *their* perspective, not just from the perspective that Mr. Froomkin might want them to.
My point is - my voice my not be a majority opinion on any given subject, though it's nowhere near as lockstep as he assumed. Regardless, it's still a voice of a significant proportion of the electorate, and is a voice representative of a significant chunk of the soldiery. All of which deserve a hearing at the White House, and in Congress. And since it's a voice many in the MSM don't agree with, it gets filtered, and watered down, or just ignored in much of Mr. Froomkin's world. For reasons having to do with bias, groupthink, and simple business realities.
Which is why, when the technology allowed, blogs sprang into being. Even the Kossacks represent the same thing - because they, too, think the MSM is, well, insufficiently biased their way...
Bottom line, Dan - I think the Prez hears your message plenty often. And he had a response to it, consistent with his idea of the job of the President:
"It's the job of the President to see over the horizon, and beyond the Gallup Poll."
And accountable? Strikes me, Dan, that's not really your job, directly, either. You certainly feed it however. I'm thinking there was some accountability in the mid-term elections. And there will be more, one way or another, come 2008. Because, oddly enough, that's how the system works. And I happen to agree with the President on this issue - the job of the President is to set and pursue the vision, and convince people to follow it. That is the essence of leadership. Good leaders succeed, bad leaders fail.
But just jumping in front of whichever lobe of the herd is in front today and saying "Follow Me!" and then jumping in front of the next lobe of the herd that takes the lead and saying "Follow Me!" isn't leading. At best, it's reacting.
And as I recall the principles the Founders intended, in some respects, that *is* the job of the legislature, and especially the House, which is supposed to be the voice of the people, and expected to represent their passions, hence the two year election cycle (originally it was going to be every year - can you imagine that in today's environment?). The Senate, originally intended as the voice of the States, rapidly morphed into the group who is supposed to take a longer-term view, free from the passions of the moment, and the President, well, that office wasn't intended to be as powerful as it's become, as Congress abdicated some of it's responsibilities to gain cover for not having to make hard choices that might cause electoral pain - but the job of the President is to provide vision and to lead - and the Board of Directors can provide the Rod of Correction every two years, with removal possible every four.
*That's* the accountability function. And I think, Mr. Froomkin, your lot has been doing just fine on that score from your perspective, however much I may or may not agree with your assessments. So whining and snarking that the President spent an hour with some bloggers who's views you don't agree with, because they didn't behave like *you* would... well, I can't help but wonder if there isn't a wee touch of sour grapes in it.
Because let's face it, Dan - in that regard, every day is MSM journo day at the White House. Don't grudge we rubes our *hour* in the sun.
3 Comments