Are Blogs to Blame?

March 4, 2005 1:46 PM

Are Blogs to Blame?Tom Regan, Associate Editor of the Christian Science monitor wrote an interesting piece referencing the latest findings of the Feb 2005 Harris Poll showing that more and more Americans (64%) *still* think that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al-Qaida. Tom's piece proposes that too many Americans are getting their "news" from sources -- including blogs -- that are tainted with right-wing opinion. Tom proposes that blogs share a large responsibility for confusing readers and blurring the lines between news and opinion. On this same topic, last week Editorial Cartoonist Ted Rall wrote an Op/Ed piece last week on blogs that primarily talks about the dangers of the right-wing blogger "lynch mob." Does the sphere of right-wing blogs far outweigh the sphere of influence of left-wing blogs? And is this something that is worrisome? Are blogs a danger to further polarizing public opinion? What do you think?
posted by popvulture (52 comments total)

"tainted with right-wing opinion"

Yes, heaven forbid people don't get left-wing opinion The Truth™ from "proper" news sources.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:05 PM on March 4, 2005

Considering that right-wing "opinion" consists of outright lies like "Saddam was in cahoots with Osama", yes, I'd say one is better off getting their news elsewhere.

i eat tapes
posted by cyrusdogstar at 2:07 PM on March 4, 2005

Rightwing blogs have a simple, unified message that is distributed in an almost hierarchical fashion. They are more organized and far more aggressive than leftist blogs. So in that sense, yes, their influence is greater on the mainstream media, which in turn influences the public.
posted by solipse at 2:11 PM on March 4, 2005

Tom writes a bit more about this on the "Does Journalism Have a Future? blog. While I agree that Americans are consuming more opinion-influenced "news" -- and I also agree that blogs contribute to this somewhat -- I think that more of the blame in this case needs to be given to FOX News and conservative radio commentators. I just don't believe that bloggers have this huge of an influence on the American public's opinion yet. For instance, is there any one blogger with readership over 1 million yet? (As all the most influential newspapers in the U.S. have online readerships over 2 million). I would bet that the average American still does not read blogs regularly to get their news. Anyone agree/disagree?

And before any bloggers get all bent out of shape, please keep in mind that I've been writing my own blog since 1998, back when they were still called "weblogs" or "pitas." I believe in the power of blogs -- I just don't think we have captured the mass audience of newspapers, radio, and TV. And since blogs are most often very niche-focused -- rather than mainstream focused, I'm not sure that we could or should capture as large of an audience as most mass media (i.e. the major TV networks, nationally-distributed radio shows, and/or world's largest newspapers) I'm glad we (bloggers) exist, but I think we shouldn't overemphasize our importance and influence in the large scheme of things. No matter how many times CNN reporters say "blogosphere" on-air.
posted by popvulture at 2:12 PM on March 4, 2005

And then there's the possible "coming crackdown on political blogging" by the Federal Election Committee [as discussed this week here ].
posted by ericb at 2:12 PM on March 4, 2005

And then there's the possible "coming crackdown on political blogging" by the Federal Election Committee [as discussed this week here ].

That makes me want to pee my pants it's so funny. WTF are they going to do when the blogs are hosted in Russia, China, or Sealand? Are we going to have China-style "Great firewall" to keep out the prohibited speech?
posted by mullingitover at 2:16 PM on March 4, 2005

Yes, heaven forbid people don't get left-wing opinion The Truth™ from "proper" news sources.

In this case, given that one side was correct and the other side is now pretending it was all about spreading democracy all along, yes, "left wing opinion, [also known as] the truth" as you so well put it, could have saved your country 1500 lives, and orders of magnitude more Iraqi lives.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:18 PM on March 4, 2005

As well, this White House - taking direction from Rove - has created a "machine" to manipulate the media. What - with paid off pundits, planted "shills" in the White House Press Room? What other tactics are they employing for the purposes of distortion? Is [A] U.S. Ministry of Propaganda Next?

"Senior Democrats in Washington are privately expressing stinging rebukes of the mainstream media’s lack of coverage on recent issues concerning what Democrats see as systematic media manipulation and partisanship....[an anonymouse Decratic strategist] went so far as question the “courage” of Democrats in Congress for failing to respond to what he described as a myth–that major media outlets are liberal. 'We’re living in the post-Jeff Gannon era where the left can finally show we know how to fight back and hold the media accountable,' the strategist told RAW STORY. 'The right wing spent 30 years telling America about the liberal media, it’s time Democrats found the courage to set the record straight.'" [Raw Story | March 04, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:21 PM on March 4, 2005

*anonymous*
posted by ericb at 2:26 PM on March 4, 2005

*Democratic*
posted by ericb at 2:26 PM on March 4, 2005

I would bet that the average American still does not read blogs regularly to get their news. Anyone agree/disagree?

I agree. When my parents start reading blogs, let alone know what the term means, then I'll know the "tipping point" has occurred.
posted by ericb at 2:29 PM on March 4, 2005

The only people who believe blogs have such a huge influence are the bloggers themselves.

Also, because these radio hosts and bloggers are only preaching to the choir anyway - then what the hell does it matter? They think Saddam and Al Queda are bosom buddies, and if they didn't believe that they'd just believe something else that suits their world view. That's the reason all these things exist - so people can reaffirm what they already believe and not have to suffer their views being challenged which, heaven forbid, might make them feel slightly uncomfortable.
posted by dodgygeezer at 2:31 PM on March 4, 2005

Blogs, are like editorials in newspapers, and TV & radio commentators: It's opinion, not an attempt at fact. Unfortunately, the standard for truth and accuracy in editorial is very low (and even lower in blogs) -- have you ever checked the facts on what these people write, even in the most prestigious op-eds in the NY Times and Wall Street Journal? How can they be so bald-faced? How can they be so ill-informed?

The answer is, they're not. They're not trying to inform you, they're trying to influence you and they'll do it by hook or crook. And they're not doing it for your own good, they're doing it to serve their own political agenda.

Editorials, including blogs, are political weapons and you are the target. I'm not sure why anyone takes the bullet, but we do. I'd think their track record would undermine everything they say by now.

We do it here, too: It's easier, and more exciting to feel outraged/fervent/self-righteous for a side than to deal with the tedium of research, analysis, working to understand both sides before making up your mind, coming to a nuanced position and even then accepting its uncertainty, looking for new evidence and testing it. But this isn't an action movie or political drama; it's not supposed to be exciting. This is real life with very real consequences.


Does the sphere of right-wing blogs far outweigh the sphere of influence of left-wing blogs?

Tom Regan's article wasn't about right and left, it's about blogs. Do the two sides on Crossfire balance each other out? No, both sides are the problem. The old cliche applies quite well and literally here: Two wrongs don't make a right.

Most people reading this think I'm talking mostly about the 'other' side, but I'm not. Have the humilty to accept you're just as vain and flawed (and so am I) and act as if you are, not as if God blessed you with knowledge and righteousness.
posted by guanxi at 2:51 PM on March 4, 2005

Forgot a tag; how embarrassing:
/rant
posted by guanxi at 2:52 PM on March 4, 2005

I think the difference between the right and left on weblogs is similar to the difference in the way that the Republican and Democratic parties are managed. The right does a much better job staying on-topic and keeping to a common theme. There is very little difference between Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds -- pick a post from any one of them and plant it in anothers blog and I doubt the casual reader would even notice. This mirrors the national committees top-down style of management. The talking points are issued from on high and the party faithful all march to the same funky beat.

I don't think that this is indicative of any vast right wing conspiracy and I don't think Rove is spitting out memos to Charles Johnson and his ilk, but I do believe that the rights core constituency shares more in terms of values and interests with one another than that of the left. They tend to see things in black and white and have a moral certitude that translates well to ten second media sound bites and paragraph long blog posts.

During the run up to the national campaign Dean tried to build in the other direction, from the bottom-up. It didn't go very well. Despite the glowing press and early enthusiasm, the gazillion Dean blogs wound up watering down the message with internecine squabbling and a host of issues that became too numerous to allow them to focus on any one. Kos, Atrios and the rest are all over the map. I happen to think that Zuniga (sp?) is a nutcase, while, at the same time, believing that most of Josh Marshall's words are dead-on. I don't see this kind of split on the right.

Simply put, the left generates noise while the right generates a simple and concise message.
posted by cedar at 3:08 PM on March 4, 2005

So called "right-wing blogs" are just another subculture on the internet. So what? What are you going to do, keep people from blogging? How? Is that even a good thing?

I can get my news from a lot of sources. I can get my news only from my granola eating hippie friends at the local co-op if I want. Let's replace 'blogs' with 'co-ops' and see if that story still makes sense.

Are Co-ops to blame? I think a majority of Americans *still* believe we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil by reducing our gas consumption, even though a passing knowledge of the physics of fractional distillation would disabuse them of that notion [read the last few paragraphs of this page if you don't believe me]. I propose that too many Americans are getting their "news" about the world from sources -- including granola eating hippies at co-ops -- that are tainted with left-wing opinion. Etc.

The conclusion of the above paragraph is ridiculous, even though it is true that a majority of Americans are wrong when it comes to coming up with a strategy for reducing our foreign oil consumption. Again, so what? A majority of Americans is probably wrong about many things.

It's like what Clay Shirky says in The FCC, Weblogs, and Inequality: "For people arguing about an ideal media landscape, the tradeoffs are clear: Diverse. Free. Equal. Pick two." The viewpoints of various bloggers are incredibly diverse across the spectrum, and blogs are free to anyone who wants to create one. But there is no blog equality; the most popular blogs have thousands and thousands more viewers than even average blogs.

Not only can anyone create a blog, but I can read whatever blogs I want. I don't see the problem with this, even though the sum total of everyone exercising their free choice is not reflective of my personal beliefs. (And why should they be? Are my opinions that much better than anyone else's? I doubt it.)

All you can do to combat disinformation in a decentralized media universe such as the internet is to put forth your own truth and persuade people to believe in it.
posted by the_W at 3:16 PM on March 4, 2005

On the "are bloggers journalists?" topic, according to a preliminary ruling issued today in Santa Clara Court case involving Apple Computer, bloggers do not have the same legal protections that shield journalists from revealing their sources.

This could have a significant ripple effect on all blogging sites that disclose information about companies.
posted by popvulture at 3:18 PM on March 4, 2005

Admittedly, I don't read any political blogs. I try to keep myself as poorly informed as possible in order to avoid getting passionate about an issue, only to have my soul crushed by the political machine.

[/hyperbole]

I found this article to be quite interesting, however, I don't think that the problem with Americans being ill-informed rests solely on blogs. While I've been away for a while, I don't remember our TV news as ever being "fair" and "unbiased." It seems to me that a lot more people are watching Fox News than are reading the "right-wing blogosphere" on a daily basis. Which is a problem in and of itself. There are millions of people who are willing to believe whatever the television tells them, so, could we at least have the television tell them something closer to the truth? Just a wee bit?

I'm not saying that the "left wing" version of things is the "TRUTH," just that Fox News clearly isn't. (I've even watched Fox News, though not willingly.)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:42 PM on March 4, 2005

blogging was created by rove to dupe the pinko masses into beleiving they have a voice.

NO PERMALINKS FOR OIL.
posted by quonsar at 3:44 PM on March 4, 2005

Maybe it's better to have news sources with openly declared viewpoints, than "impartial" news sources that are manipulated by the party that happens to be in power at the moment?
posted by Triplanetary at 3:47 PM on March 4, 2005

Yes, because this belief certainly could never have come down from the white house. No way would Cheney, Bush, and Rice make such claims. And if they did our fearless media would tear them to shreds over it. It must be the evil blogging cabal!
posted by skallas at 4:05 PM on March 4, 2005

Left and Right are for describing hands not politics.

So blogs are the new talk radio?

I can't wait for the ideological conspiracy folksonomies.
posted by srboisvert at 4:05 PM on March 4, 2005

>Simply put, the left generates noise while the right generates a simple and concise message.

That noise you talk of is variegated opinion. It's a strength unless the prevailing view is "monotony now, and forever."
posted by gsb at 4:12 PM on March 4, 2005

I may be mis-remembering, but wasn't the whole "RatherGate" deal started by a conservative blog that basically made up bullshit "proving" the letter was printed out of MS word? As I remember it, there were even professional type and print experts who came out against this guy's amateur hour lies, but the damage had already been done and Rove's media-muncher went to work getting Rather canned.
posted by shmegegge at 4:12 PM on March 4, 2005

Check out Jonah Goldberg's smug editoral on this issue.
posted by solipse at 4:14 PM on March 4, 2005

I suppose that there is something to be said for a string of sites that merely parrot a series of talking points coming out of the right-wing establishment. If people see the exact same message being repeated again and again and again it's quite possible -- probable even -- that they then come to see that message as being The Truth(tm) merely by virtue of having seen it many times.

The process is only helped by the rather incestuous nature of most political blogs, which link to other like-minded blogs.

Clearly this is one instance where the right-wing enjoys a natural advantage over the left. Being by its nature more authoritarian and top-down in approach its message is unified in a way the left can never be. Then again that's what has made the right-wing scary in the past, and that's what makes it scary now.
posted by clevershark at 4:16 PM on March 4, 2005

parrot[ing] a series of talking points

Hence, "Axis of Evil", "Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Death Tax" (formerly called Estate Tax), etc. were terms/concepts conjured up by the current administration. They - and others - have been repeated again and again, driving the "memes" deep into much of America's collective conscience. This strategy with its coordinated tactics are actually the mark of "effective marketing". A focused "message" (i.e. logo, tagline, jingle, etc.) - oft-repeated - is at the heart of great advertising.
posted by ericb at 4:39 PM on March 4, 2005

*This strategy with its coordinated tactics is*
posted by ericb at 4:40 PM on March 4, 2005

guanxi gets it right.

(Does anyone else find it ironic that "guanxi" doesn't have any connections? Heh).
posted by gd779 at 4:48 PM on March 4, 2005

"I may be mis-remembering, but wasn't the whole "RatherGate" deal started by a conservative blog that basically made up bullshit "proving" the letter was printed out of MS word?

Kinda. It's my understanding that someone pointed out some anomolies in the memos on the Free Republic forums. Then a couple of right wing blogs hit it hard (Powerline and LGF, in particular) and one cooked up an animated gif superimposing a modern Word version over the 'original'. The Wall Street Journal picked it up, then MSNBC and it was off to the races.

The problem is, in all likliehood, they were fake. CBS has never adequately explained the sourcing of the memos and for anyone familiar with typography fundamentals and word processing software the trail is pretty clear. As much as I hate to admit it, it was the CBS expert who turned out to be an amateur.

I happen to believe that the documents were recreations of lost originals (this view has been expressed by Ms. Mapes, the producer) but CBS failed miserably by presenting them as authentic when the most cursory examination indicates otherwise. This was not a shining moment for 'liberal' media and they are never going to let us forget it.
posted by cedar at 4:55 PM on March 4, 2005

> I may be mis-remembering, but wasn't the whole "RatherGate" deal
> started by a conservative blog that basically made up bullshit "proving"
> the letter was printed out of MS word? As I remember it, there were even
> professional type and print experts who came out against this guy's amateur
> hour lies, but the damage had already been done and Rove's media-
> muncher went to work getting Rather canned.

You remember that just like some people remember Saddam was pals with Osama.
posted by jfuller at 5:01 PM on March 4, 2005

rant/

You have to take surveys like this in the proper context.

Yes, that was a scientifically sound poll, with a large random sample and good statistics. But consider the source.

Wouldn't the very people polled agree that "Christian Science" is an oxymoron?

Look at what Americans think they know, and how we know things.

We know things, in the USA, such as:

Flying saucers are real.
Evolution is one of the devil's lies.

Think about the implications of what we believe.

There's no need for Hubble or NASA, because the Space Christians will tell us what God wants us to know.

Don't worry about bacteria that can resist antibiotics, viruses that jump from bush meat to humans that cause contagious leukemia and immune system failure. Those are just "evolution stories" -- they must come from said devil. If evolution isn't real, none of those things can happen.

All that nonsense about infection, for example.

Remember, it was Pontius Pilate who washed his hands. Don't be like him!

Now, given that about half the adults in the United States believe this kind of stuff, doesn't it make sense that they also have faith that, because they believe it really, really sincerely, it will become true?

Quantum physicists agree, the radio preachers will tell you -- belief and faith are the basis for reality.

It's those of little faith -- the ones who talk about science, reason, mathematics -- who make life in the USA go wrong. Isn't that Right?

Are you now or have you ever been scientifically literate? Place your hand on this Bible and swear that what we tell you is the truth .....

Oh, and welcome to the new age.

My country. It was good, while it lasted.
/rant
posted by hank at 5:44 PM on March 4, 2005

The problem isn't blogs, it's the fact that people don't read enough news to know the difference between fact and fiction.
posted by kingmoog at 6:42 PM on March 4, 2005

kingmoog, i'm not sure the problem is that people don't read enough, but i completely agree with the opinion - apparently rare in these parts - that public opinion is the responsibility of the public, not media and/or blogs.
posted by scottreynen at 7:15 PM on March 4, 2005

Does the sphere of right-wing blogs far outweigh the sphere of influence of left-wing blogs?

From my perspective, considering this is one of my fave sites, I see more links to left-wing blowards than right-wing blowhards by a country mile. And the left-wing blowards tend to be praised, while the right-wing blowhards are derided.

Whether this applies generally, I don't know. But I always get a laff when I read Mefites complaining that they don't get enough left-leaning information and analysis. It's all I get here!
posted by uncanny hengeman at 7:41 PM on March 4, 2005

Putting aside blogs for a moment, the problem is that conservatives used to be skeptical of government. Now that they have a complete lock on government (with the exception of filibusters and Anthony Kennedy), they are no longer skeptical of government.

They are skeptical of anyone who questions their government.
posted by UseyurBrain at 8:05 PM on March 4, 2005

public opinion is the responsibility of the public, not media and/or blogs.

Do you think opinion forms in a vacuum? Or could it be possible that opinion is formed based on information coming from media and/or blogs? What an inane formulation.
posted by dame at 8:18 PM on March 4, 2005

Does the sphere of right-wing blogs far outweigh the sphere of influence of left-wing blogs? And is this something that is worrisome?

Certainly is to left-wingers ... but probably the more worrisome thing is that the right wing perspective itself may now simply have a wider influence than the left wing perspective.

Although, judging by this thread (on a left-wing blog) in which it is implied that:

1. The American people - and the Iraqi people (good grief) - would have been better off if we had just kept "negotiating" with Saddam Hussain;

2. That Dan Rather really didn't deserve banishment, because maybe, really he just told a "small" lie to reveal a "larger" truth; and

3. That really, as usual, Karl Rove is behind the whole mess ...

... hell, maybe the American public is not as clueless as left-wing blogs make them out to be.


posted by MidasMulligan at 8:33 PM on March 4, 2005

It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it.

The right blogosphere is a remarkably effective tool for distributed political creativity. The Corner and threads on Free Republic are in their own, very different, ways little ecospheres where the effective ideas rise up for Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to take to the masses, and ineffective ideas are quickly crushed.

The left blogosphere, while larger, seems to both attract and amplify bad or politically useless ideas. A study of, say, Democratic Underground from 2002 to 2005 would reveal a remarkable progression one ham-handed set of enthusiasms after another -- certainties of left triumphs which were not to occur, confident claims that parochial views were universal, ardent advocacy of political angles which were in reality, dead on arrival in the mainstream media.

Nothing more typifies the left blogosphere's ineffectiveness than the passion for Howard Dean. Not particularly electable in November, but still annointed in 2003 as the chosen man. But then the blogosphere couldn't even get him through the primaries. Analysis after 10 months to think this through -- he's the man to Chair the DNC! After all, big, bureacuratic Washington political machines are always successfully run by run-off-at-the-mouth iconocslastic outsiders, right?
posted by MattD at 8:38 PM on March 4, 2005

1. The American people - and the Iraqi people (good grief) - would have been better off if we had just kept "negotiating" with Saddam Hussain;

Certainly. Because we would have either found his alleged weapons of mass destruction (remember those?) and forced hi mto destroy them. (which he was doing, we all saw the Iraqis being forced to bulldoze al samoud ii missiles because they flew 30km too far. He was cooperating.)

As well, the evidence pointing to Iraq having dangerous weapons of mass destruction (the graduate student's paper, etc) would have been exposed for the fraud that it was before Americans were sent to die over it.

"But saddam was baaaad!!" is not a sufficient argument, you know this.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:05 PM on March 4, 2005

MattD has it right. In fact, he has just very succinctly described the transmission belt.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:06 PM on March 4, 2005

Interesting link, Space Coyote, although I think that it is actually more an historical contention, relating to a definitely pre-blog political world, than it is a descriptor of the role of right blogs now.

The very essence of the contemporary right blogosphere is that it dispenses with real world geographies, organizations and affiliations and enables combinations of people and ideas which could never exist elsewhere. The intellectual cross-pollination, and constructive competition, in the right blogosphere is extraordinary.

It could never occur if mediated through the NRA or the Christian Coalition or the National Chamber of Commerce or some other interest group, or god forbid, some carefully negotiated meeting ground they'd all agree upon.

The obsessive Clinton hating that your linked piece mentioned is a great example of losing ideas which the right blogosphere has helped to supress. We got ourselves millions more Evangelical voters running on ideas, and against Kerry, a man of apparently decent sexual rectictude, than we ever got running against Clinton's pecadillos, in person or by proxy.
posted by MattD at 9:32 PM on March 4, 2005

...seems to both attract and amplify bad or politically useless ideas. A study of, say, Free Republic from 2002 to 2005 would reveal a remarkable progression one ham-handed set of enthusiasms after another -- certainties of left triumphs which were not to occur, confident claims that parochial views were universal, ardent advocacy of political angles which were in reality, dead on arrival in the mainstream media.

nice how that works.
posted by quonsar II electric boogaloo at 9:32 PM on March 4, 2005

Quonsar II, "ham handed" doesn't mean "I don't like it" it means "it didn't work." Free Republic works like a charm --
a key piece of the right wing blogosphere, which is in turn part of one of the most effective political movements this country has ever seen.

But the very fact that you'd allow your disdain for the opinions expressed on FreeRepublic to miss the entire point of the analysis -- of efficacy, not of agreeability -- is a wonderful case and point for why the left blogosphere can't win for losing.
posted by MattD at 10:45 PM on March 4, 2005

The obsessive Clinton hating that your linked piece mentioned is a great example of losing ideas which the right blogosphere has helped to supress.
posted by quonsar II electric boogaloo at 10:49 PM on March 4, 2005

Hey I didn't say that people loved ole' Bill, just that we aren't making him the centerpiece anymore!
posted by MattD at 11:01 PM on March 4, 2005

the left blogosphere can't win for losing
posted by quonsar II electric boogaloo at 11:10 PM on March 4, 2005

You remember that just like some people remember Saddam was pals with Osama.


BINGO!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:53 AM on March 5, 2005

Left I on the news readjusted my world view all through the iraq war.
posted by Jerub at 3:26 AM on March 5, 2005

jfuller writes " You remember that just like some people remember Saddam was pals with Osama."


except that people who remember Saddam being pals with Osama don't listen to reason or accept the possibility that they could be wrong.
posted by shmegegge at 6:13 AM on March 5, 2005

Well, contrary to popular belief, newsblogs seem to be a small minority of the whole weblog sphere. They may be more influential, but they are really not as numerically dominant as people would like to claim.

The other side of the story is, U.S. politics has frequently been divisive. Only now we wear it on our sleeve.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:55 AM on March 5, 2005

I dispute the notion that right-wing blogs are more influential than left-wing blogs. I think Bush's whole Social Security proposal is in the process of grinding to a halt almost specifically because of the work Josh Marshall has done on it; he's made himself an expert on this, and the media - whose eyes glaze over like the rest of us when it comes to this kind of mathematics - see him as an authoritative source, which he certainly is, not just on the facts and figures, but where the politicos stand.

And as per the periodic death threats emanating from right-wing blogs, all you need are a couple successful lawsuits and methinks that will cease, rather quickly.
posted by kgasmart at 3:20 PM on March 5, 2005