Decision ‘08

Happy Holidays To You, Too, Jerk!

Alright, my tongue is way in cheek with that headline, but there’s a lot of holiday snarkiness in the air, it seems…on the heels of the embedded blogger ‘controversy’ that I referred to below comes a series of posts decrying right-wing bloggers in general and Pajamas bloggers in particular as one-voice lemmings whose opinions are supplied by the GOP noise machine.

I’ve made my affiliation with Pajamas crystal clear and I feel no need to further justify it; my blog has a search function if anyone cares to revisit the issue. Ironic, though, isn’t it, that so many pieces decrying the same sin of the right appear at the same time? (Cue ominous conspiracy music).

Or could it be that there are simply a handful of issues that dominate the headlines at any given time, and that many times people find it convenient to engage in ‘black and white’ shorthand such as pro-war and anti-war, or even - wait for it - wingnuts and moonbats? There are sycophants on both sides of the aisle, to be sure, and some of those sycophants may find that predictable demagoguery may be the path to high traffic and riches. More power to them and their readers.

That doesn’t interest me, however, and I doubt that it does you. I repeat my pledge to be an independent voice, and on such occasions as require it, as, for example, blogger conferencence calls initiated by the RNC, I will clearly label the source of information. In other words, I may repeat a talking point from time to time, but if I do, you’ll know about it, and I’ll make it clear whether the opinion is mine or belongs to someone else.

File this one under navel-gazing, to be sure…

18 Responses to “Happy Holidays To You, Too, Jerk!”

1 AcademicElephant Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 11:07 am
You know, I don’t mind their criticism because you can argue that we do the same thing to the MSM. But as there are increasingly two types of news circulating, consumers can make their choice–and I think it’s difficult to argue against the rationale that independent bloggers who aren’t trying to make deadlines or make news themselves in order to garner publicity for their publisher are producing a less-biased product. But here’s a question–if they’re so eager to balance out the blogs, why aren’t there the liberal equivalents of a Bill Roggio or Michael Yon blogging the war? I don’t think Michael Ware counts.
2 dmac Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
They don’t need the balance in the blogosphere because…well, you know. (Must…keep…spleen…in…check…here).
3 Ryan Bonneville Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
It’s hardly clear that they’re wrong, though, Mark. Take a look around. What exactly is the difference between Hugh Hewitt and the folks at Red State? When was the last time any of them seriously disagreed with anything the party is up to - and when is the last time the party did anything worth agreeing with? Just because you don’t seem to be drinking the Kool-Aid doesn’t mean the vast majority aren’t either. “Lemmings” is largely just putting it nicely.
4 dmac Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Ryan, let’s turn that argument around and look at the MSM’s many outlets of influence - other than Fox and the WSJ, any contrarian viewpoints you see out there, other than those from a primarily left - leaning perspective?

My point is that the blogosphere is mostly right - leaning because it’s a market that’s clearly underserved by the current choices in the MSM. If the reverse was true, we’d be seeing more alternatives to the Lefty viewpoint other than the aforementioned Kos.

Air America’s dismal performance and the NYT’s rapidly imploding Select subscription service are indicative of the many viewpoints that already exist to serve the populace who entail a liberal perspective.
5 AcademicElephant Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Ryan–I think there is a difference between Hewitt, who is frankly partisan, and Redsate, where some of the contributers may be in the Hewitt camp but not all–and the editors of RedState went ballistic over Miers and are very antsy over immigration, for example. Also, the frankness of Hewitt’s partisanship contrasts with the veneer of impartiality claimed by outlets like the NYTimes.
6 Mark Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
To be sure, there are lemmings, I totally agree, though I hesitate to name any names - and here’s why: who’s to say, for example, that because someone supports the administration 99% of the time, that person is not sincere? I think the true definition of a sycophant is not one who agrees with another a large percentage of the time, but one who refuses to consider any arguments to the contrary - and that’s a hard call to make.

Certainly, though, it makes for less intriguing reading when one always knows where the (fill in the blank: blog, TV show, newspaper) will be on any given issue in advance…
7 Tom in Texas Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
I couldn’t help but note that you failed to respond to any of the arguments actually set forth by these various lib bloggers. Firedog Lake accused all of these bloggers of being subsidized by the right wing and Wolcott argues that right wing bloggers are far too quick to ask for divine punishment (read: beheading) of any that dare dissent. So, to sum up, I have two simple questions:

1) Are you being paid for your work with Pajamas Media?
2) Do you condone others desire to behead Michael Moore or other Americans that you may disagree with politically?
8 AJStrata Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Keep up the good work Mark.

You have the right people upset!
9 Mark Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
Tom, regarding question 1: I see you’re too lazy to use the search function on my blog, as I suggested, so I’ll save you some time. I’m paid by Pajamas for advertising space - period. I don’t answer to an editor, and I don’t modify one word, nor am I obligated to.

2. Of course not. Why should I even have to answer such an asinine query?

Is that all you’ve got?
10 Mark Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Thanks, AJ, you keep at ‘em, too!…
11 Joe Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
LGF is a blatantly racist site. Just pick any post and take a peek at what gets written in the comments section there. I have seen Muslim babies called “cockroaches”, pleas for Muslims to be expelled en masse from the USA before it is too late, etc. As LGF is run by a founder of Pajamas Media, it is only a matter of time before advertisers take a closer look at this. A company like Pepsi or McDonald’s is playing with fire by allowing themselves to be associated with this kind of pseudo-fascism. Also, I think it’s a fair question: is Pajamas Media funded by a right-wing “investor” with no desire to see a return on his investment, so long as the right messages are being supported and propogated? The lack of transparency at Pajamas only fuels this kind of speculation.
12 Tom in Texas Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Mark;
I never suggested that you modified your opinions based on being on PJ’s payroll, and i don’t doubt that your affiliation with them is based on ideological agreement with most of their correspondents rather than the fact that they pay you. I suspect the case is identical at Huffington. As for the second question, the reason you should have to answer it is that you dont appear to have denounced these people specifically for their statements. Rather than taking the opportunity to do so, you defend oversimplifying issues by lumping both these bloggers together. I think they are making entirely separate arguments, and that you should attempt to adress the substance of said arguments when commenting upon them, rather than simply dismissing anything they actually said.
13 Mark Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
Tom, fair enough. The reason I didn’t denounce the beheading comment was that I didn’t hear about it until these posts today, but let me say I categorically condemn that sort of nonsense. I totally agree that the blogosphere (on both sides, let’s be clear) lends itself very easily to outrage after outrage, and though I think Sheehan, Moore, Streisand, et al, are politically disgusting, I wish them no harm, and indeed, a long and prosperous life. We all need to remember to avoid demonizing our opponents, even if we may ridicule their stances…
14 Mark Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Joe, the problem with LGF’s comments is the same with those at Daily Kos; it is too easy (and I’ve been accused of doing it myself) to ascribe the views of commentors with those of the site’s proprietors. With Kos, he has said enough ridiculous stuff himself to earn condemnation on either score; can you say the same about Charles Johnson? In other words, can you give me even one example of anything Charles has said (not one of his commentors) that is the equivalent of Kos’s “I feel nothing…Screw them”?…
15 Ryan Bonneville Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
dmac - I agree that the MSM is exactly the same (on the other side of the aisle, although I don’t think it’s quite as liberal as RS or Hewitt are conservative), but that doesn’t excuse us. This argument gets used a lot - “Don’t blame the right/Bush because we are/he is no worse than the left/Clinton”. Boo that. Hewitt’s a cretin and the sooner we can all agree to that, the better.

Elephant - That’s probably accurate, although there’s something to be said for micro-lemmingism at RedState. The uniformity of opinion there is rather shocking to me. At least in my unscientific survey of the conservatives I know, there is nothing like that kind of uniformity within “the movement”. We were pretty much all ballistic over Miers, so of course they were too. But when’s the last time a pro-choice post was put up there? Are we really supposed to believe that conservatism can’t be reconciled with a pro-choice position? Or pro-gay marriage? Or pro-national health care? The folks there are a rather odd combination of social conservative/economic libertarian that I just plain don’t see much of in the real world.
16 Mark Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 9:42 pm
Whoa, whoa, pro-national health care?? Easy there, buddy…(I kid, of course)…
17 Ryan Bonneville Says:
December 28th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Mark, that’s a beauty of this whole “conservative movement” business. There is no real definition of what it is. I’m actually rather amazed myself that there aren’t more hardcore Christian social conservative types in favor of national health care. It seems perfectly consistent with the rest of their beliefs (see Catholics, who have long been “liberal” on government spending issues). Not only that, but there are also a large number of Republicans (like me) who can only really be called liberals (but who side with Republicans because the Democrats are off the deep end) who should be likely to support it (I do, as a matter of fact).
18 dmac Says:
December 28th, 2005 at 10:59 am
At least on this site you can read quite a few variable opinions on who we’d like to see as the GOP nominee for ‘08. There are moderates like myself who like Rudy, others who are big Rice supporters, McCainiacs, and so on. BTW, Rudy and McCain favor legalized abortion, so we have a divergence of opinion on that subject here as well…

No, it’s not an ideological free - for - all by any means, but I like visiting here for the discordant notes I often see, at least compared to my own personal views.