Once again, thanks so much for the overwhelming response to last week’s “In Defense of MSM” piece. Linked by the likes of Michael Totten, PressThink, Rathergate.com, Dan Kennedy’s Media Log, and numerous others, the post generated a record number of comments, as well as both the biggest traffic day and traffic week in this blog’s three-year history.
Clearly it’s a topic of interest to most in the political Blogosphere, so I thought I’d address a few of the points brought up in various discussions, in these comments and others.
- I appreciate that most commenters and linkers were respectful and cordial, even when they disagreed with me. But not everyone, of course. Michael’s link generated a 119-post comment thread, and while there was much intelligent discussion, I got the sense a lot of the commenters responded to the post that they wished they’d read, as opposed to the one they actually did. And none of them seemed to realize that the lede of the original post was about them.
- Memo to one of those commenters: excerpting each paragraph and putting a Latin phrase at the bottom does NOT constitute a “thorough fisking”- nor is it an argument. Next time, try engaging the points on their merits.
- It was amusing to see commenters, here and elsewhere, buttress their “the MSM lies and distorts the facts” arguments with inaccurate characterizations of what I wrote. If someone thought the point of my piece was that “bloggers should just go away,” they obviously didn’t actually read it.
- I also resented the implication that I'm somehow less of an authentic blogger because I defended the MSM rather than rip it, though I did get a good laugh when one blogger called me a “house blogga” and “a self-hating journalist.” Ha- I should’ve seen that one coming.
- Glad to see I’m not the only one who, independent of everything else, hates the “MSM” acronym.
- Another commenter, lifting a chapter-long metaphor from Hugh Hewitt’s book, compared bloggers to Martin Luther and “MSM” to the Catholic Church. Those using that metaphor might wish to consider that, 500 years after Luther, the Church still exists, and thrives as a worldwide institution.
- Yes, the Eason Jordan thing popped up right as I was finishing this, and I didn’t want to comment before I knew exactly what was said. But after catching up on everything, my take is that if the reports from Davos are correct- and I trust Rebecca MacKinnon that she got it right- CNN was right to force him out.
- I liked the “Most bloggers don't live in D.C. and thus can't be bribed with the food offered at embassy parties” argument. I always thought the coverage-is-tainted-by-buffets meme only applied to sportswriters.
- By the end, a consensus seemed to emerge that bloggers and journalists can indeed coexist peacefully and push each other, because they’re not that much different from one another anyway. I also really liked what Radley Balko had to say on Scarborough’s show the other night (summed up on his blog here):
My take is more that (a) given that most high-trafficked bloggers also write for the media and the most media outlets also publish blogs, the supposed great divide between blog and traditional media isn't all that wide, and (b) blogs are guilty of all the same biases, double-standards and feeding frenzies they criticize the traditonal media for.Amen to that. And thanks for reading, everyone. Posted by Stephen Silver at February 16, 2005 01:34 AM
Stop the Insanity, BLOGGER!!!
Youa re so self-promoting yourself today so people go back to your blog bc you mention the MSM again...get over it! :P
"Stop the Insanity, BLOGGER!!!"
Oh, if only you could, Steve, if only you could. And we think the MSM is full of nutjobs.
Posted by: DBrooks at February 16, 2005 11:53 AMBush haters need to grow up. Getting Fired helps.
See the Kurt Anderson NY Metro article. Then my comment title makes more sense.
The MSM Bush-hatred has fed into too many problems. We need more blogstorms to flush out MSM heads who let Bush-hate cloud their news facts, too much.
As the current heads get fired, the new guys will hire more pro-life, pro-Bush folk, and the news will slowly get a little more trusted. It needs balance, first.
Best single commentary I've seen on this subject is here. A logical, well-documented, well-written and insightful piece. No point commenting on Silver's take - he believes what he's decided to believe, not going to change any minds there. But the posts shredding his 'reasoning' were often brilliant, and I certainly appreciated them. In the course of a few posts I've found a number of other people with real insight into this issue, and it's been a pleasure meeting and corresponding with them.
This will be my last post here - I was told by one of his buddies here to 'get lost' and I'll oblige her. Hope that pleases her.
Posted by: Mr. Snitch at February 17, 2005 10:46 AMThis will be my last post here - I was told by one of his buddies here to 'get lost' and I'll oblige her
That's great, 'cause I was just about to tell you to shut up. There's a way to foster intelligent discussion around here, and going to my friends' blogs and insulting them because they agreed with me aint' the way to do it.
Posted by: Stephen Silver at February 17, 2005 11:06 AMI told Mr. Snitch to "get lost" from MY blog. Noone else's. Other bloggers may be tolerant of condescending creeps, but I am not. Mr. Snitch seems to believe my objections with him were that he disagreed with me; this is not the case. My exact objections were his pompous tone. I blog for fun, and people like that spoil it. The only thing that pleases me about his getting lost from any of my friends' blogs who talked about this topic is that people that are as bright and intelligent as they are don't have to deal with some patronizing jerk treating them like they're students in his kindergarten class.
Posted by: Emily at February 17, 2005 01:04 PMI told him to "buzz off" from my blog, too. Those were my exact words. "Buzz off." It was great fun to say it.
Funny, too - He showed up on one of my posts very early on and made the second comment - I couldn't believe someone I didn't know at all would treat me with such condescension, so for a second I thought I might have read his tone wrong. But then I put it together: I knew exactly why he was there - to punish me, somehow, for not getting into lockstep with him over here. It was so silly!
But the ironic thing was - that post ended up generating almost 60 comments, a great conversation, a ton of people sharing and talking and giving opinions - a vigorous back and forth, almost no consensus - everyone had a different point of view, it was awesome. Too bad he was too silly and rigid to partake in it.
Posted by: red at February 17, 2005 04:20 PM