Friday, June 18, 2004

All About Us

Time has an article up all about blogs and while it has some interesting things to say, I think it glosses over a few of the more important points about blogging. It talks about getting news from someone other than a generic anchor person. But that's not the real reason. Both sides, politically, feel like the media is biased against them. The mainstream media have everyone hating them at once and it's their own fault. Time of course, decides to completely skip any kind of discussion of why other than "it's boring."

Secondly, they slip in a little paragraph at the end about "what if we only read stuff we agee with?" Do they honestly think it's not like that now? Cases in point: Alexandra Polier (who is much hotter than Washingtonienne, just goes to show, Dems definitely have better taste in ass than Republicans) and Trent Lott. I find it highly amusing that Time uses something lefty bloggers dug up that was TRUE on a republican, with a SMEAR against Kerry.

The recent surveys that bloggers were conducting is also intersting Very few convservatives visit Josh Marshall (his link is to the right) slightly more (about a third) liberals visit Queen Sully (not linking to him, haha!) So perhaps it's not entirely beyond reason to believe that some of us might actually read blogs from the other side. Still I wonder, how many conservatives watch stuff other than faux news? Do you think the mainstream media gives you a fair shading on each issue? Hardly. I have to say, I don't think there IS a liberal bias or a conservative bias in mainstream media. The media however, is really really lazy. Because of that, they focus on process and minutia instead of a conceptual whole. So yeah, MY bias about this article is that it spares the mainstream media from a true discussion of their failings which are many.

Let me just add also, that the mainstream media has a weapon blogs don't which is, the resources to really dig into a story.

An Answer to The New Republic

In the New Republic, they ran a story wondering why they were wrong or even if they were, in supporting the war in Iraq. They conclude that strategically they were very wrong but say that many others shared their problems. Secondly, they say that morally they still have a case for war, that the Iraqis are better off for now. But that depending on what happens (i.e. 4 sided civil war) we might fail morally.

My answer to The New Republic is this: You were wrong because you BELIEVED GEORGE BUSH COULD DO THE JOB. Nothing he had ever done up to the Iraq war was at all convincing that he truly had the balls to do the job right in Iraq. Not Afghanistan, not Homeland Security, not anything.

The crime of The New Republic, and indeed the crime of John Kerry himself is that they believed George Bush was not a fucking cowardly liar.