Talk left used to be one of my favorite stops on the blogosphere. The criminal justice aspect of the website is very interesting and the blogger formerly known as Armando can be entertaining. The website has become ridiculously anti-Obama and pro-McCain and I wish that it would be taken off the DailyKos blogroll.

I'm curious as to whether anybody has any opinions about this.

I know... I know... we should all just go to bed and forget about the VP issue for the next few days until the announcement.

However, I can't get my mind off of something:

Why is the announcement being made via text/email?

Lots of good stuff in this Rebecca Traister post about gripes at BlogHer that they got short shrift by the media compared to Netroots Nation.

Over at the popular feminist blog Jezebel, Megan Carpentier pointed out the disparity between the Times' coverage of BlogHer and Netroots Nation, the gathering of political bloggers that was held, quite unfortunately, on the same weekend as BlogHer.

"Was a panel discussion on the use of profanity in political blogging [a Times story that ran about Netroots] of more pressing importance to Times readers than Michelle Obama's first blog post or the aforementioned discussion of how to get taken seriously as a woman political blogger?" Carpentier wondered, in reference to two brief references in Jesella's piece. "Or is the Times just trying to prove the point of the BlogHer founders and users -- that women just don't get taken quite as seriously as men?"

It was unfortunate that both conventions ended up on the same weekend. Sometimes scheduling conflicts are unavoidable, but hopefully can be minimized in the future. Still, it's kind of ironic that the panel in question, the one on profanity in blogging, featured four panelists (in addition to the moderator) including two of the most successful and respected women in political blogging -- Digby and Amanda Marcotte. This effort to paint the two conventions as a battle of the sexes is a bit myopic because quite frankly, it isn't true.

Netroots Nation wasn't a "guy bloggers's conference". It's a partisan confab focused on movement building, taking charge of our nation's government, and putting our nation on a progressive direction. BlogHer is about, well, women who blog. Perhaps a better comparison for BlogHer would be the dude-dominated Blogworld Expo, which got its start last year and also suffered from a dearth of media attention because, quite frankly, people huddled over a computer isn't that interesting a story.

When you have a focused mission and distinct message, it's easier for media to report and discuss what's happening at your convention. So on that front, Netroots Nation had the advantage. We're waging war against Republicans who have run our country (and world) into the ground, and the establishment Democratic Party that enabled that GOP malfeasance for so long. This doesn't just give media story hooks, it doesn't just give speakers a reason to attend (like Al Gore), but also attracts a very specific media creature -- the political reporter.

On the other hand, what does a gathering of women bloggers deliver, story-wise, beyond "a bunch of women blog"? It was the same problem with Blogworld Expo, even if they had big-name speakers like Mark Cuban. "A bunch of dudes blog" is no more compelling a storyline. That sort of unfocused mission gives license to trite coverage like the one many of the BlogHer attendees rightfully blasted:

Among Feministe blogger PhysioProf's complaints was that the story was published in the Styles section, the section of the paper reserved for trend pieces, drink recipes, society photos and wedding announcements. In other words, the girl part of the paper.

PhysioProf also called out Jesella for her clichéd lede (about BlogHer attendees taking over the men's rooms in the conference hotel), her reportorial focus on details that were female (there were lactation and changing rooms), superficial (women applying blush and eye shadow) and ridiculous (self-helpy affirmations posted in the bathroom stalls like "You are perfect"). She was also angry about Jesella's decision to draw attention to the emotional, sometimes weepy panels that took place during the gathering, and the piece's description of how the conference had "moved on" from last year's Kathy Sierra-inspired focus on how women are treated on the Internet, to discussions of how bloggers can increase their influence, reputation and profit.

Of course, YearlyKos/Netroots Nation attendees have suffered through plenty of an idiotic news story, so I sympathize. But I also put myself in that NY Times reporters' shoes and wonder, given the assignment, what exactly would I have written about? Again, the fact that "women blog" doesn't make a news story. There has to be more. I probably would've squeezed a business story out of it, or maybe a trend story (with Pew numbers, if they exist) about the growth of women blogging (though haven't "blogging grows" stories been done to death?). Maybe I would've tried to figure out what differentiates a "women blogger" from "regular" blogging, though that seems patently absurd given that half of us on this planet (give or take a few percentage points) are women.

Granted, any of those are better than writing about "you are perfect" on a bathroom stall, but still, not an easy assignment. Certainly not as easily grasped and digestible as the "smash Republicans, save our nation!" message coming out of Netroots Nation. And despite what Traister writes, the interest in our event had little to do with our fundraising prowess, which is actually quite anemic in terms of total political spending. It had more to do with the movement building component -- a ground and message army doing battle on behalf of progressive causes. Without a common purpose to similarly rally the troops and build strength with numbers, BlogHer obviously is at a disadvantage.

So consider, what kind of reporter should've covered BlogHer? Not the political press, since the event was clearly not political. What about business writers? There was some of that. BlogHer did highlight some of the most successful female bloggers. So maybe it's a business conference? It certainly isn't a technology one (which Blogworld Expo tries to be). If it's about supporting each other as a community (which certainly happens at Netroots Nation), then that's cool too, but then who cares if the media covers it? The cool thing about Netroots Nation is that the event would be just as successful if not a single media outlet covered it. We're there for ourselves, not to provide material for the NY Times. (The heavens know we've succeeded despite the ire and disdain of the traditional media, not because of it.) It's like Trekkie conventions. Does the media actually cover them? Who cares! Attendees clearly have a blast.

So which is it? I have no answers, nor would I deign to suggest any if I did (which I don't). I'm clearly supremely unqualified to tell a women's conference what it should be about. But many of the problems it had in attracting suitable attention has less to do with sex, and more to do with that lack of successful media packaging. If BlogHer can solve that riddle, it'll garner far more attention. If not, as long as they throw a great event, all that really should matter is that attendees have a great time.

By Mitchell Aboulafia  

I was tempted to title this piece, "The Cowardice of Bloggers," but I figured that this might be needlessly inflammatory. No reason to get people angry by calling them cowards just to get a bit of attention. (READ ME because I’m too controversial for words.) I have to admit that the temptation was great, for it seems that one needs to become the Dr. Strangelove of the Blogosphere to get noticed these days.

For the record, before I begin, I should make it clear that I am not suggesting that pseudonyms be banned from web sites. Nor I am suggesting that it isn’t fun and at times useful to use a handle that hides your true identity. Everyone wants to be Clark Kent on some days of the week. And of course there are serious political reasons, for example, retaliation by employers or governments, for hiding one's true identity.  No question, there are good grounds for using "pen names." With this string of caveats in place, I now make my case.

The Blogosphere is about to be buried in junk. When exactly it will be totally buried is anyone's guess, but I see the sphere turning into the electronic equivalent of Wall-E's earth, probably before the glaciers melt.

As we all watch the election slowly unfold, it's important to keep your eyes wide open. Kos and the diarists here are terrific, but it's a very good idea to look at some of the right wing blogs to see what "the opposition" is saying. You get a better chance of seeing whether you are or are not in an echo chamber, can occasionally find some good writing, and might even learn a thing or two.

A caveat: I voted for Bush the last two elections. This year, I finally saw how utterly bankrupt the Republicans are in terms of ideology, and I'm hanging my hopes on Obama and a better way. But that doesn't mean I erased my old bookmarks... feel free to use a convert's old tricks.

Here are they are, then: some of my favorite right-wing blogs. Some are good for "enemy research"; some are just good reading for the non-political topics that come up; and some are just nifty. Browse around. It's a big Internet. The more you listen, the more you learn.

A caveat before you good exploring The Dark Side of the Force: Don't troll. Just don't. It's not worth it, really. I'm entirely convinced that no one has ever won an argument, ever, on the Internet... and honestly, in the end, it's just tacky. Read. Don't write. Be respectful of the other guy, and treat them as you'd like to be treated.

The following exchange took place on the eve of the FISA vote, July 8th, between myself and Virginia Senator James Webb.  You can listen to this exchange at The Seminal.  

All emphasis is mine.

Josh Nelson:  You mentioned the role the blogosphere played in your Senate campaign.  I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a little bit.  And also tell us what type of role you would like to see them play in legislative fights in the future.  

Bill Moyer: "Democracy without honest information creates the illusion of popular consent at the same time that
it enhances the power of the state and the privileged interests that the state protects."

  This is Moyer's way of saying that there is a crisis in information delivery in this country and unless we find more reliable sources on information than what is presently available, namely mainline TV and print, the people will not have the information necessary to make the informed decisions that a democracy requires.  It's another way to say that mainline journalism's move away from investigative journalism to commentary journalism, characterized by journalists interviewing other journalists, is a dagger at the heart of democracy.

In good ole Jeff Foxworthy fashion, let’s start a new diary each week for our "friends" in the Main Stream Media (MSM) who visit here looking for a scoop so they can appear non-partisan on their "newsiness" programs.  

Sometimes they forget who they are, or they mistakenly think when we refer to the MSM that we can’t possibly mean them.  Let’s help our "friends" recognize themselves by highlighting some of those obvious "signs" that they are indeed among the much maligned MSM.  They can’t wash that kind of "stink" off of them and can we can still smell ‘em over here!  

If I left something out...feel free to inject your own in the comments.  This thread belongs to our "friends" in the Pee-Stream Media.

Everything "we know" about our economy really is wrong.

The U.S. gov't is grossly distorting our country's financial realities to us, via publicized statistical reports, on a regular basis.

NEW INFORMATION SUPPORTS THIS REALITY.
At least as far as the Consumer Price Index (i.e.: inflation and cost of living statistics) is concerned.  A story running on this (Monday) morning's Bloomberg.com confirms this.  In the article, a variety of comments from throughout the business community supports the reality that the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") statistics that we hear from our government are little more than fiction.

I first noticed this meme in Markos' defense of his now infamous smiting of the Obama campaign on Monday.  In it he states

At the end of the day, I'm pretty irrelevant in the whole affair. Obama is going to raise a ton of dough and win this thing whether I send him money or not.

and

what I decide to do with my money means next to nothing, no matter how much hyperventilating may happen on this site's comments and diaries about it all

Then, while catching up on yesterday's news, I caught this post from Matt Stoller where he says

I sort of take the Atrios view, which is that this is a sucky blog and what we say resonates in a small corner of the world, but not so much to the wide swath of voters.  So criticism of Obama isn't a big deal one way or the other

Why are prominent bloggers downplaying the power of the Blogosphere?

The quickly-approaching light at the end of our tunnel this election cycle is a turbocharged, nuclear-powered locomotive, the likes of which we've never seen. It will arrive at our station well before we cast our votes in November.

The headlines of the past 48 hours spell it all out (see below the fold). Unfortunately, many of those headlines were with regard to stories published outside the U.S.

Unbeknownst to the majority of U.S. society, due to a total lack of responsible reporting of the facts by the MSM, it is now self-evident to this diarist that the sky really is falling.

Cross Posted On Open Left

There is a new backlash against the blogosphere backlash against Obama for his flop on FISA.  For example, the top diary here at Daily Kos right now (or, at least it was at the top when I wrote this) pre-emptively blames those people making the criticism for allowing McCain to win the election (continued in the extended entry):

The greatest explanations come from a response to a response.

Noam, Michael and Eve inhabit one of my favorite blogs on the presidential race.

According to some folk, as "party leader" Barack Obama supposedly controls every move of every Democratic elected official — which means that he allegedly has the power to stop the FISA bill all by himself, without a filibuster, by leaning on the Senate versions of the swing-district Blue Dog House members that voted for the FISA bill, telco immunity and all — and that he even could have ordered House members around to stop the bill. If he’s so all-powerful, how come several conservative Democrats like Florida’s Tim Mahoney still won’t endorse him even after Hillary quit the race?  

Voter suppression is real. It takes more money to turnout Democratic voters than it does for the Republicans to turn out theirs. (Ours are more likely to not vote because of voter suppression. Ours are more likely to need rides to the polls. Etc.)

Compared to the reach of insidious chain emails and the MSM, the reach of the progressive blogosphere, while growing, is small. To expand the reach of the progressive community, you need to communicate with friends, family and your community, particularly in swing states. Remember that not everyone has the internet, and amongst those who do, many do not use the internet like you do. Many use it only for email and news.  I attended an event recently where Peter Daou spoke, and he talked about some of Clinton’s donors who used a credit card online for the first time when they donated to her. Neither of my parents have ever read a political blog. They use it for some news, email and keeping tabs on their stocks.  

Quite frankly, Obama and progressives everywhere need to expand the reach of our message and donor base beyond the folks who use the internet the way you use it.

From Daily Kos:

I am total shock (27+ / 0-)

I feel as though I have lost someone I knew well.
I disagreed, I was angered sometimes, but I admired him and counted on him.

The meaning of life is to live it.

by COwoman on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:05:36 PM EDT

RIP Tim (9+ / 0-)

I'll miss you.  Like my family, I don't always agree.  But what a terrible loss for journalism and our country.  I know he really wanted to see this one out, he seemed so eager about the election.  I'm at a loss.

Those who know, do not say. Those who say, do not know.

by Leftywingnut on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:08:56 PM EDT

A month ago, I plowed through the late David Halberstam's 1979 book which shares the same title as the subject of today's journal.  It reveals the manner by which the events of the world and their ultimate journalistic impact are dictated by a handful of influential people.  Particularly the book reveals the means by which a few notable persons' own unique prejudices, peculiarities, biases, and opinions dictate the nature of the news we receive.  Though heavily dated in sections, The Powers that Be is an instructive read inasmuch as it reveals the basic building blocks of how the system was set up and the methodology by which print journalism, television journalism, and radio journalism were interwoven.  With the rise of the blogs, much of the system has been obsoleted, but it's still instructive to contemplate what came before in shaping what will come to pass in the future.      

It's fashionable these days to lash out at the media for its failings and in doing so to attempt to crack the code by which its supposed uniform agenda revolves, just as it is fashionable to formulate conspiracy theories and interject intrigue into the major policy decisions of our government.  

In 1994, Republicans posted huge gains in Congress in large part to the surge in popularity of Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk radio programs.

The Democrats were never able to match that success.  Air America started strong, but fizzled out quickly.  Although I was addicted to Al Franken and San Seder, I knew in my heart that it would never catch on.  The reason was simple demographics: I never believed that Democratic leaning voters would ever really listen to talk radio in large numbers.

Tonight we can look at the blogosphere as our talk-radio.  A grassroots, people-powered  force that has the power to upset the Washington elite power structure.  The unknown candidate who embraced and understood it was able to defeat the insider with more connections, deeper pockets, and strong name recognition.  The aging Goliath who relied on outdated strategies, who manufactured tired and phony controversies, who didn't "look at the YouTubes" was soundly rejected.

In 2004 we saw a hint of this with the surprise popularity of Howard Dean.

Last year, the movement grew stronger, and took back both houses of Congress.

Tonight, the changing of the guard is complete.  The new generation of the Democratic Party has arrived.