There was an interesting profile in the New York Sun yesterday of Charles Johnson, proprietor of the influential blog Little Green Footballs. LGF isn’t really my cup of tea, but it does often contain worthwhile analysis, and Johnson is an interesting character- I hadn’t been aware that he’s a musician, or that he’s toured with the likes of Al Jarreau.
But there was one quote from Johnson towards the end of the piece, in discussing Rathergate and his blog’s role in it, that sort of jumped out at me:
“In a way it’s bigger than Watergate, because Watergate wasn’t an attempt to influence an election.”Say what? A break-in at Democratic headquarters, by operatives of a Republican White House, 5 months before the ’72 vote, “wasn’t an attempt to influence an election”? And while I don’t deny that Rathergate was a big deal, “bigger than Watergate”? That’s stretching it- I don’t think any political scandal that doesn’t drive a president from office will ever top Watergate.
Johnson really should know better, especially since he’s old enough to remember Watergate. And was a lefty back then as well.
Posted by Stephen Silver at February 4, 2005 01:26 AMI don't agree with Charles, but the 1972 election was probably beyond influencing.
Posted by: Bill McCabe at February 4, 2005 05:58 AMAre you sure he didn't mean that in reference to Watergate, the media hasn't tried to influence an election (rather than the political figures)?
Posted by: jaws at February 4, 2005 11:22 AMAgree with Jaws.
It was not the media who were trying to influence the election but rather a petty break in into an office. The results of Liddy's adventure would not have reached as many people as the "respected" Dan Rather telling everyone that the memo's were real.
Watergate - A big deal, bigger than Democrats slashing the tires of republican vans in Wisconsin on election day, bigger than democrat partisans shooting at Republican headquarters in several states, bigger than the sexual predation of interns by a president in the white house, bigger than even lying about it under oath.
Not as big dead people voting for democrats in WA state and certainly not as big as one of the the big three networks actively trying to get a sitting president out of office by using fake documents. It is bigger than watergate for that very reason.
I think the enormity of it is also the unchartered way in which it was exposed. This was not deep throat and Woodward. This was "a couple of guys in their pajamas in their living room" that brought down a network anchor. Think about that too.
I think that Charles has great perspective on history and unlike someone like Kos, plays it fair. Charles is a 9/11 republican and does not mince words on either side of the aisle. He just happens to not like where the Democratic party is headed, its base, and sadly its most vocal elected officials.
Posted by: J. Lichty at February 4, 2005 11:40 AMRathergate is called rathergate precisely because it was done to steal and election.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 4, 2005 12:04 PMJohnson is typical of the early wave of everything on the 'net: someone who's already in the business. This does tend to strongly skew opinion on the web (it's not truly representative of the unwashed masses). However, he's quite right in that the media has long needed a kick in the ass and that bloggers, finally, are giving it to them. And wow are they hating it, but the survivors will adapt and live with it, and I think we'll all be better off.
I don't love the site, but not because I disagree with it. Hard to disagree with a statement like: ""When you see that 19 guys can take jetliners and wipe out two of the biggest symbols in America," he said, it would be fatal to be passive. "If we let it go, one of those groups is going to have a nuclear weapon." And give the guy credit for detective work on the Rather thing, which was a service to the whole country! He misspoke comparing 'Rathergate' to Watergate, I think that was just a slip, but good for you for calling him on it. (Of COURSE they were both attempts to influence an election!)
I never did get into the LGF reading habit. It sure is popular though - or at least, it sure gets 'hits' (which might not be the same things after all). Maybe I should give it another shot.
A good observation by the writer: "But he relies heavily on the very journalists he castigates, without whose reports he would have little to comment on or criticize." Very true, and rarely mentioned by bloggers. We (the unwashed masses) still need paid hacks - uh, journalists. What we DON'T need of course is to let them have the final word on what's real and what's the product of media self-iinterest and inbreeding.
I wonder, though, about the future for all these guys tied to their computers trying to keep the plates spinning and their traffic numbers up.
Posted by: Mr. Snitch at February 5, 2005 06:32 PM