home

Biases

Our friend DemfromCT writes an interesting post on coverage of polls by the Media. He writes:

[T]he networks are invested in having a close race. Now, this is tough to prove, but it isn't exactly rocket science. A blowout election is not ratings sustainable the way a close race is.

Well, that may be, I am not much convinced by that argument. But I do know the Media has biases. NBC's bias against Hillary Clinton was something unavoidable for any honest observer. Which brings me to this part of Dem's piece, which does not bring "all the news":

It's not surprising that the networks do what they do. They invest money in polls, they're sensitive to criticism of "bias", and they have an eye on ratings. But there's a reason that those who are interested in politics are increasingly turning to the internet.

. . . The use of the internet to get political news is growing. At times, it's the only place you can get the news. And as long as networks insist on relying only on their own polls, or pushing an old narrative that's not supported by the newest data, the American public is not going to get a clear and fair picture of what's going on by relying on broadcast news alone. Not unless the networks do a better job in reading polls.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is a laughable assertion. People are turning to the Internet to get "a clear and fair picture" of what's going on? That is absurd. I do not give a "fair picture" of what is going on. I know Daily Kos does not. Nor of course does any internet outlet. Most of us are advocates for a point of view. We used to not even have any pretense to being journalists. I certainly have no pretense to practicing journalism.

I used to think that the Left blogs (and it is something I try to be) were dedicated to one thing though - accuracy. Maybe we did not report all the facts, or all the polls or all of the story, but we tried to make sure we were accurate about the statements, as opposed to opinions, we did make. Especially when writing about Democrats.

After the most recent Democratic Primary, no one can claim that that is true anymore. Many if not most of the Left blogs had their own motive - to destroy Hillary Clinton. This blog was not immune to its motives, TalkLeft's owner, openly supported Hillary Clinton, so one could certainly see shading in her own posts.

I have and had my own biases - I like to believe they were not candidate-centric. But one can never see themselves clearly. So I imagine others would see different biases in my work.

My point is this - "truthiness" became a Left blog thing in the past year and to pretend otherwise, as DemfromCt does in his post, ignoring what just occurred in the Democratic primary, is to not provide accurate reporting.

But that is my point in the end - the Left blogs are not "honest reporters" - they are advocates. When it comes to discussion of polls, issues or candidates, axes are always being grinded and oxes oxen are always being gored. By all of us.

The blogs are not "the only place to get the news." It is the only place to get some views. Take them all with a grain of salt. Even the ones expressed here.

Speaking for me only

< Repeal the Solomon Amendment | Standing For Something >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The advocacy of left blogs must improve (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:23:41 AM EST
    I never thought I would be comparing a majority of the left blogs to RedState but it seems that many have become that lefty version.  If Dems want to win the argument they must present the best argument and the argument grown in a bubble is not that argument.

    Blowout race? (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:26:48 AM EST
    It seems there is still plenty of kool aid to go around.

    I was charmed by the assertion (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    that the media coverage of the Unity event only sparked more stories about defiant voters.  If TalkLeft is any indication, it isn't just a story that voters are mad as heck and defiant....it is a fact. Perhaps the media was simply reporting.

    Parent
    That would be very hard to believe now!! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    Perhaps the media was simply reporting.

    LOL!

    Parent

    He sort of bruies his view that in fact it is (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:33:50 AM EST
    not a blowout race. But you can find Dem saying that in there.

    but what bothered me the most about his post, and it was off tangent to my point, was citing Frank Rich, freaking biased unreliable, lying Frank Rich, as a source for what is "true."

    That was inexcusable.

    Parent

    Well, the left blogs (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:39:16 AM EST
    are certainly not dedicated to accuracy. I'm beginning to wonder if, like Frank Rich, they have always been this bad, but I just haven't noticed it.

    Marginally related: raspberries to Gail Collins for her letter to the Public Editor today in defense of MoDo.

    Parent

    Logrolling in our time (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM EST
    Feet of Clay my friend.

    Parent
    The arguments were a lot better (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:46:19 AM EST
    when Dems were losing :)  Just my observation, but now that the wind of this terrible administration is pushing Dems along accuracy seems to no longer be as important.

    Parent
    Exactly. Accuracy calling out opponents (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:46:39 AM EST
    was fine, i.e., accuracy vs. Bush.  But we thought -- after all, such blogs said -- that being "reality-based" was important uber alles.  

    When such blogs took a side in the primary, it became calling out Clinton instead of Bush -- but not calling out those blogs' candidate's errors in fact as well as his grievous errors in intonation.

    In sum, it's only about accuracy in opposition, and just like RedState, those blogs are tolerant and even applaud inaccuracies, "unrealities," by their own side.  They have entirely failed in their stated purpose, their mission, and have made themselves a waste of bandwidth.

    But such blogs bankroll their hosts -- and keep their hosts of followers off the streets, which from reading some of them is a service to society.

    Parent

    mebbe (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:48:12 AM EST
    But Once Upon a Time (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by The Maven on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:11:04 AM EST
    not all that long ago, many of those "left blogs" were dedicated to being tethered to reality and to acting as correctives for, and supplements to, the more traditional media sources.  I know that several years ago, I'd written more than a few lengthy comments at places like DK about our "role" as an additional layer of ombudsmen:  not to act merely as a peanut gallery throwing brickbats at biased or less-than-competent reporters, mocking them from the sidelines, but doing whatever we could to engage with them to correct them when necessary and generally hold them accountable to a higher standard (I have found that attempting to contact a reporter or editor in a serious fashion with a correction or clarification is often a much faster way to fix a bad story than simply carping endlessly).  In this role, then, we would not seek to replace these journalists and media outlets; rather, we would seek to improve the information available to the public at large.

    I have always believed that, indeed, knowledge is power.  By making more and better information available to the widest possible group, we would enable the American people to make more informed -- and thus better -- decisions.  Some blogs still follow this path; most of the largest ones, however, have seemingly abandoned this philosophy.  As a result, the nation as a whole suffers.

    Parent

    We were pretty good media watchdogs (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:16:16 AM EST
    for a while. Not so much anymore. I think Turkana calls this the "great convergence"

    Parent
    Indeed, We Were (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by The Maven on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:43:26 AM EST
    And there was certainly reason to be proud of what we all were beginning to accomplish.  I've located one such comment from May 2005 in which I'd given my thoughts on our role in the greater scheme of things.

    But over the past year, and accelerating massively early in 2008, shouting in the most hyperbolic terms seemed to become the more preferred mode of discourse at sites that had once decried this in the strongest possible terms.  The failure to acknowledge this transformation -- and even to deny that it had taken place at all -- is what pains me here, to have seen so many folks whom I had long respected fall victim to the faults against which we were battling arm in arm.  As I said above, we have lost something that we may never be able to recapture.

    Parent

    A couple of times, yeh. But, bygones (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:18:54 PM EST
    just like many other ballyhooed but brief and thus ultimately inconsequential attempts in media history.

    Parent
    Reality Based (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:16:48 PM EST
    That's what bloggers used to call themselves. That's why being accused of drinking kool-aid angers them so much - they are "different". Only fanatic right wingers delude themselves to believe that they hold the keys to truth and everybody else is lying. They don't realize that they can be led just as easily, and just as willingly, as the right when somebody pulls the right strings. We all can, really.

    Parent
    Very True (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by The Maven on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:41:52 PM EST
    and I still frequently refer to myself as a member of the reality-based community.  Whereas in that bygone era I used that term to distinguish myself from Bush-enablers and right-wing sycophants, now, unfortunately, I find myself applying the designation to set myself apart from those bloggers who have twisted their principles into knots in order to rationalize their uncritical support for Obama.  At least there are still some Obama backers who are refusing to be led around by insidious puppetmasters.  My hope, of course, is that more will cut the strings before it is too late.

    Parent
    I used to think (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by suki on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:27:53 AM EST
    the left blogs were dedicated to accuracy, too.
    After this primary (with few exceptions), not anymore.
    I do consider you one of the exceptions because you are aware of your bias in the first place, but more importantly, because you admit when you are wrong.
    I see little to none of that elsewhere.

    One thing (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:31:59 AM EST
    In the process of hating Hillary, lefty blogs became aweful places.  Dkos convinced me to never go back to dkos. I wasn't going to waste my time to see a lefty version of Weekly Standard, and Billy Kristol.  

    Now, I honestly have far more respect for the Weekly Standard than I have for dkos.  It's not even close.  

    Lefty blogs may have some good writers, but they don't (usually) have access and can't do first hand reporting.  What made them worth reading was their passion, especially their passion for accuracy and getting at the truth. Now, that has been lost, and we have bad writing, bad bias, and transparent wankery.  And Billy Kristol is better at that than Markos.

    It was hard to distinguish between dkos and MSNBC during this primary.  They deserve one another.

    Oh, yeah.  TalkingPointsMemo was another blog that completely lost me during this primary.

    On the other hand, my respect for Bob Somerby now knows no bounds. We should initiate and name an award after him.  The Bob Somerby Award for telling the truth, no matter whom it affects.

     

    I haven't visited Kos since (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:58:15 AM EST
    I noticed the hard blogging against Hillary, last fall or summer, whenever it was.  It became a scary no-dissent-allowed place, the lefty version of Freeperland.

    But then, I started to get skeptical about that blogger prior to the primaries, when he self disclosed about his (interesting) political past, his desire to get hired by the CIA, and his bizarre self-description as a "libertarian Dem", whatever that oxymoron means.

    He also had some rather curious comments, iirc, leading up to the very promising 06 midterms, to the effect that he wasn't that interested in that outcome but rather in what gains could be made in 2010 and beyond.  Huh??

    Forgive me too for being skeptical about a guy who's been hired by the MCM -- Newsweak -- to pontificate.  Sorry, I just don't trust anyone they'd bring into their club.  YMMV ...

    As to Somerby, indeed he's not perfect in that he not 100% objective -- who is?  But he is simply better than the rest, including the pretty good Media Matters.  But then, so few plough the media criticism terrain he does and in such detail, and few if any do so with the kind of thorough historical context he offers.

    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    Kos makes no bones about his biases and partisanship.

    this is where people are being unfair about him - he does not pretend to be a "journalist." He is a partisan and open and unabashed one.

    In some ways, he is the most honest person on the blogs - he tells you not to trust him as a unbiased observer.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:03:46 AM EST
    Markos went through a pretty significant evolution during the course of this primary.

    It's not clear to me whether he consciously decided to "go with the flow" or whether he actually came to buy into the sort of dreck that was posted on his rec list.

    Parent

    I figured that he was trying to please his (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:06:36 AM EST
    audience. So I realized that I was no longer really his audience, and left.

    Parent
    I've been thinking about what he (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jpete on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:30:49 AM EST
    got from risking (and losing) his credibility.  Could he have been told he'd get something?  Or maybe he expects an open ticket to the White House?

    Parent
    Sorry, BTD, but I didn't (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    call him a "journalist" -- he's just a "blogger" albeit a very big name one.  

    And you missed my point about his biases -- I don't diss him about his disclosing his past and his preferences and so forth, I criticize him for the nature of his disclosures, and intended to suggest that well before he and his blog went nuclear against my candidate in the primaries, he was someone -- imo -- rather slippery and not to be trusted.

    Actually I find him less honest than, say, Pitchfork Pat.  Almost as slippery and nonsensical and overheated at times as Tweety.  Just my view from someone who has absolutely no history of diary writing over at Kos, who has no personal connection with the guy, and no interest whatsoever in returning there to find the occasional rare honest posting.

    Parent

    Much like "speaking for myself only" (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    on your posts, then, it would be advisable for Markos to post "don't trust me" on each of his -- such as his flipflops on Clinton, as you have written.  

    He does appear, at least, to want to cultivate trust in him by his following, with his "insider" posts and voice-from-on-high style, and he does appear, at least, to revel in the result of having that following.  And leaders take responsibility for the effect of their leadership -- or, if they really don't want it, they actively try to discourage it.

    So, since he doesn't say "don't trust me" often but imparts the opposite in his content and style, a standing disclaimer such as yours would be the honest thing to do -- as it is in the standard set by you.

    Parent

    Like Bush, he cultivated a mass following ... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:46:29 PM EST
    ... that empowered him to propagate falsehoods with impunity, by rising to his defense en masse and attacking any source of reality-based feedback.

    Like Bush, he has taken advantage of it.

    And like Bush, he cannot disentangle himself as the mass drags him down.

    Parent

    Meh (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    Kos can engage in intellectual dishonesty wih the best of em'. When you run around saying Florida and Michigan don't matter after bashing a candidate for makng statements along the lines that caucus states aren't important someone needs to notify the irony police.

    I think kos is probably a good guy. I think his behavior towards Hillary this primary though(particularly towards the end) was pretty deplorable.

    For the record, I think YOU were the most honest and fair blogger this election cycle.

    If I wanted to watch a bunch of yes men I'd watch regular TV. I had hoped that we would never get to the point where critical thinking was tossed by the wayside. Unfortuately on sites like Dkos critical thinking was met with pitchforks and mob mentality. Sad.

     

    Parent

    It's not his biases that are a problem (5.00 / 9) (#73)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:48:51 PM EST
    You and Jeralyn both have biases, but I respect both of you because I've never seen either of you lie or distort the truth. Jeralyn does not allow hate or lies to be promulgated on her site. Markos not only tolerated the lies, he encouraged them. I think he believes the lies. I think he deluded himself into believing that Obama is all that and more and Clinton really did run the race-baiting campaign of all time. Look at the ridiculous claims about darkening Obama's skin for an ad. That was ... surreal.

    Parent
    the dude is still a Republican at heart. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:55:20 PM EST
    Now watch this drive.

    Parent
    Known bias is one thing (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    Making stuff up to stir up hatred is quite another. Kos crossed that line during the primary and lost any creditability as far as I'm concerned.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#68)
    by Pol C on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:32:18 PM EST
    It was always my sense that Kos's operating principle was "Thou shalt not speak ill of other Democrats," and Democrats who didn't adhere to that were the first to come in for criticism. That was at the heart of his antipathy for Joe Lieberman, and when Obama criticized Gore and Kerry last New Year's Eve for being "divisive candidates," he came down on Obama as well. And, my God, did the Obamarrhoids flame him for it. But when Edwards dropped out, and the only choice was between Obama and Hillary, he swigged the Kool Aid big-time and became the ugliness he beheld. I think that was when a lot of us gave up on him and the site.


    Parent
    Hate me for saying this. (4.66 / 3) (#95)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:51:14 PM EST
    Despite appearances, I think Markos is very sexist.  His excuse for voting Obama? "Because I can't stand Terry McAuliffe" Duh!!!

    He couldn't tell you the truth.  He couldn't stand Hillary.  But he couldn't come out and say it.  In the grand scheme of things, Terry M. is nothing.  

    Hate me for saying this, but my sexism rader was always on Code Red when Markos wrote about Hillary.  

    You know, if I meet any rednecks who won't vote for a woman and say so,  I will respect them like hell.  At least they know where they stand and they tell you so.  Latte-drinkers who try to hide behind fancy words and not let on that are threatened by a strong woman are annoying as hell.

    Well, he has good company.  There are Kerry, Kennedy, and many others in that club. (Yes, Kennedy women are strong, but notice that they all know their places.)


    Parent

    He called Edwards an a$$ (none / 0) (#91)
    by Munibond on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    because he didn't drop out of the primaries soon enough to suit Kos.  I pretty much quit reading dkos after that.

    Parent
    there are no Gods (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:36:41 AM EST
    I love Somerby too but he has biases also.

    Parent
    Then You Haven't Been Paying Enough Attention (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by tokin librul on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    Well, that may be, I am not much convinced by that argument.

    Chuy! wtf do you think motivates 'em? Patriotism? Honor? It's MONEY! LUCHRE! SCHECKELS! GELD! DINERO! CASH!
    That, and they have to maintain the horse-race if fo no other reason than to make the eventual theft of the election by the Pukes plausible...

    I am sure that motivates them (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:35:59 AM EST
    I have serious doubts that "a close race" has any financial repercussions for the networks.

    For example, NBC was trying to get Hillary Clinton out of the race for months before it was actually over. Perhaps you can explain how that fits into your theory?

    Parent

    I wonder. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Radix on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:01:25 AM EST
    I'm not so sure NBC/MNBC would have been happy had Hilary dropped out. They could have have just taken that position knowing she would not drop out. This could have been done simply for the "publicity" of it all. Any publicity is good publicity, as they say.

    Parent
    Then (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:02:47 AM EST
    whither the "close race" argument? Can't have it both ways. McCain ain't dropping out.

    Parent
    The media lost a lot of credibility over NH (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jpete on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:19:33 AM EST
    and it doesn't seem likely they want to repeat that on a national scale.  The country seems wildly tolerant of terrible journalism, but huge whoppers are just too obvious to ignore.

    Parent
    Close contests keep people interested (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    If the race is close, people keep watching, get emotionally involved. If the race is a blowout, people stop worrying and get on with their lives. Guess which one sells more ad space and commercials?

    Parent
    Your laugh (or cry) or the day. (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:38:11 AM EST
    Via Corrente

    Greg Sargent:

    Tea leaf readers note that Hillary's New York colleague, Chuck Schumer, also announced today that he's voting against it. Will Hillary follow suit? It seems like a huge opening for her to repair relations with progressives angry with her over her treatment of Obama during primary. On the other hand, some Dems note a complicating factor: If Hillary votes against the bill, it could cast a bit of a shadow over the planned "unity" Hillary-Obama event on Friday.

    I'll give Greg points for noticing the Sophie's Choice that Hillary is facing.

    (emphasis mine)

    Yeah, my reaction was the same as yours.  WTF?

    Vastleft is really succint and to the point, when s/he adds:

    But "repair relations with progressives angry with her over her treatment of Obama during primary"!? That's like expecting a battered wife to apologize for wearing out her husband's fist.


    I love the way that people (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:00:59 AM EST
    like Sargent lump all so called Progressives into a particular mind set that supports their own view of the world. Definitely overstates by a hugh percentage the segment of that so called demographic that actually reads blogs and presents opinion as fact.

    The word "progressive" has been so distorted and misrepresented during this primary season that I have decided that I do not want to be associated with that label. It has gotten to the point that I consider someone questioning my "progressive credentials" as a compliment.

    I'm a good old fashioned liberal and that is good enough for me.


    Parent

    I hate the fact that liberals accepted (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Radix on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:03:48 AM EST
    the branding Repubs gave the term "liberal". I am and always will be a "lefty" and dam proud of it.

    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    Seems to be a self-inflicted curse of the Democratic Party that they chose to accept Republican "branding" rather than turning the situation around. Of course, IMO the Dems have turned capitulating to the Republicans into a destructive art form.  Almost part of their DNA, if the last couple of years are considered.

    Parent
    Since when is voting how your (none / 0) (#59)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    constituants want or what you really want is against party unity. There are some dems, like Sen. Feingold who voted how he wanted, not how Obama/dems wanted. Unity is not blind...sometimes it's a little dimmed!!!!

    Parent
    Since the party's goals were redefined (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    by its new leader -- in emulation of the party that proclaimed unity as its goal, the Republicans.

    It has not been the way of Democrats.  It is the way, or at least the wish, of the New Democrats.

    But as a constituent of Senator Feingold's, I have to say that you're a bit blind to his being a politician, and a good one -- for his constituency.  Obama is in Illinois, y'know.  Feingold's constituents are in Wisconsin, and he always has been very attuned to the wishes of his state.  

    Parent

    By the way, (none / 0) (#96)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:55:16 PM EST
    with such advocates for Unity as Greg, who are so good at pi--ing off Hillary supporters, the republicans don't need Carly and others to put in any work for their votes.  

    Parent
    To be fair, Greg sometimes tried to be fair (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:57:33 PM EST
    ... and caught hell for it.

    TPM rapidly morphed into a publication the likes of which I haven't seen in mainstream status since before Goldwater, when US News (for instance) printed headlines, ledes, and "insider" stories that routinely used the presumed communist sympathies of major American figures and institutions as explanatory nexus for anything they didn't like.

    Parent

    My faith is shattered (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by nellre on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:41:28 AM EST
    Some blogs were recruited by the DNC to smear Hillary and/or deify Obama I understand. Others either chose to, or the authors were blinded by their own bias.

    I used to see the left (and sometimes right) blogs as a way of balancing the bias and shallowness I got in the MSM. No more. Some "progressive" blogs allowed themselves to become tools of the powerful to manipulate the masses.

    There are but a handful of blogs I still trust. This is one of them.

    And yes, we must do our own investigating.

    evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    I find your assertion about the DNC difficult to believe.

    I think bloggers had their own reasons for trying to destroy Hillary and elevate Obama.

    I certainly lost respect for some people I'd been reading for years.

    Parent

    I got that from here (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by nellre on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    here

    Judge for yourself.

    Parent

    Dean: more and more (5.00 / 7) (#71)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:40:44 PM EST
    I've been thinking that for Dean, Obama's is the campaign he never had.

    The netroots (and how I've come to hate that term) weren't strong enough, or loud enough, or whatever enough, in 2004 to give Dean the boost he needed to stay in the race.  So he made sure they were lined up and ready to go for 2008.

    What I find depressing is the thousands of smart people who are learning that political discourse is nothing more than shouting and raving, that driving any opposing view into oblivion (if you can) is ok, and that any tactic, including raging horrifying misogyny is fine as long you employ it in the service of what you want.  As long as you win, there's nothing too unprincipled you should let stop you.

    Parent

    They think it's war, not politics (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:00:21 PM EST
    ... and they think we're unlawful combatants unprotected even by the laws of war.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    Interesting article, to say the least.

    I'm even more convinced that the deal struck is thus:  Obama will pretend the organized progressive bloggers, as personified by the DFA, have the influence they want to brag about if they will pretend he is a progressive.

    Parent

    interesting article (none / 0) (#94)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:24:29 PM EST
    I found a follow up on Riverdaughter in a comment made on June 28, by someone who had talked to a District Chairman:
    The second interesting thing was that I mentioned that I felt the Obama supporters “stormed” the caucus by entering in a large group and overwhelming the registration table so that their voter registration and eligibility could not be verified. He said that he didn’t feel that it happened that way, because it was not necessary!!! He said that he had received orders from “very high up” and then he said all the way from the DNC that there was to be no eligibility verification at the caucuses. He said that they threatened to strip delegates if the DNC rules were not followed.
    He said the reason for this was that they were afraid that some legitimate voters might be disenfranchised by late registration because the records would not be up to date, so the decision was made to let anybody and everybody come in and vote in the caucuses.
    I just wanted to share that with all of you. It explains a lot about what we saw at the caucuses.


    Parent
    Folks tend to trust those who agree with them (3.00 / 0) (#21)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    If you are a strong Hillary supporter, it would not be surprising that you would trust Talk Left.

    Parent
    I hope people trust us (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:59:41 AM EST
    to not post falsehoods.

    dfo you not trust us on that front? If you do not, perhaps you could explain why? Or is it natural for an Obama supporter NOT to trust us just because we do not worship at the altar?

    Parent

    Just making an observation BTD (none / 0) (#38)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:08:12 AM EST
    First, folks who support conservative candidates are more likely to trust powerline and fox for their information than talk left or dkos.  Folks who supported Obama are more likely to trust information from sites that support him. I don't think that this is a particularly startling view.  

    Second, I didn't accuse anyone of posting falsehoods.

    Third, now that the primaries are over, I thought you were now an Obama supporter?

    Parent

    Actually I was someone (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:16:23 AM EST
    who believe Obama the better choice for the nomination prior to the end and becamme less and less convinced of my view as the primaries moved on.

    Mostly because Hillary clinton turned out to be a better candidate than I thought possible. but alos becuase Obama proved to be a worse candidate than I thought he would be.

    On the issues, they are twins.

    I was not a supporter in the way that term came to be defined in the blogs - which required slavish devotion, shameless attacks on the opposition and ignoring the blatant Media bias.

    I just thought he would have a better chance to win in November. that is why I "supported" him.

    As for the question of why people "trust" certain sites, I think you make my point - they like to hear what they like to hear. The truth or falsity has mattered less and less. Witness Keith Olbermann.

    Parent

    I think we are in the same ballpark (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:24:29 AM EST
    Lots of folks here probably "trusted" KO for information when he his target was always Bush and the GOP, or at least found him somewhat amusing.  Not so now.  

    My guess is that there are some folks here whose loathing of Obama is sufficiently strong that if dkos and powerline posted stories on the same event or incident involving Obama, they would more likely trust powerline than dkos.  As you correctly note, they like to hear what they like to hear, and they want to hear and have ratified their notion that the country would be better off, or no worse off, if McCain were elected than if Obama were elected.

    And there is no doubt that had the tables been turned, some percentage of Obama supporters -- maybe more, maybe less -- would have been at the same place.

    Parent

    That you put "supported" in quotes (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    is key, I think, to a difference.  You said it was "tepid" support and explained why, over and over.  You were backing a winner, like betting on a horse.  You were not claiming the horse to be anything but that.  You were not claiming it had wings and could fly like Pegasus.  You were not emulating ancient caesars and declaring the horse to be a god.

    But the definition of support became total, blind, fandom -- so anything less became questioned.  It would seem that if such blogs were running a real horse race, it would not be enough for their pick to win.  It would be necessary to put down every other horse -- and everyone who bet on the others as well.

    Of course, that greatly reduces the number of folks in the stands -- and thus, the stature of such events which, like such blogs, rely on the numbers to retain their reputations as important at all.

    Parent

    I don't like being lied to (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by nellre on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:00:22 AM EST
    And I don't like opinion being presented as fact.
    I have a heart and a brain. I don't want somebody trying to hijacking or ridicule them like DKos and the DNC did.

    Parent
    I trust BDT because... (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    he's BTD.

    Do I take him without grains of salt? No. But then again, his grains of salt are a lot smaller than the saltlicks I use when reading other bloggers.

    Why? Because I've been reading him for ages...and I know that he's got his own filters. But generally speaking he tends to try for a level of credibility others seem to be less concerned about these days.

    Parent

    I can trust TL (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by lmv on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:23:54 PM EST
    You act like people only read one blog.  

    BTD was always fair during the primary.  He wrote some of the best pieces defending Hillary that I read.  I took them more seriously because he was openly supporting Obama.  

    I think our country has to do some serious soul searching.  Our MSM is corrupt and corporate beyond help and our alternative media is becoming just as bad.  When the AP can't write story without slamming the first serious female candidate, when PBS has a hard time looking unbiased, there's something wrong.

    Worse, many Americans voted in this primary before knowing relevant facts about the "presumptive nominee."  How many would vote differently?  But, they can't, except in the GE.  

    Parent

    Internet and Blogs (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    The internet is a great tool for those who want to check a variety of sources for news and information.  The political "left's" blogs are not great sources for political news unless one means by the term "political news" the latest opinions of the diarists and commenters.  If I were a member of a political campaign, I'd be checking the blogs for the latest sentiments about my candidate and the newest rumors and distortions making the rounds.  There's no dedication to searching for the truth and no pretense to objectivity.  Facts are used if they help the narrative and explained away or omitted if they counter the narrative. (Example:  The campaign finance representations made by Obama with regard to contributions from individuals.)  The blogs became little more than pep rallies to gather support for the candidate.

    TL is an exception because here there seemed to be more acceptance for alternative views and meaningful discussion is encouraged by the moderators by keeping the insults to a minimum and demanding relevancy.  But if this were my only source of information, I'd be in trouble.

    And I believe the plural of ox is oxen.

    Oxen (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    It is indeed.

    That self correcting Internets . . .

    Parent

    advocacy is fine, as long as it's not dishonest (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    I wrote a lot at Bleeding Heartland and some national blogs advocating for Ed Fallon in the Democratic primary for Iowa's third Congressional district. I didn't try to destroy or smear Congressman Leonard Boswell, though, and I didn't lie about his record.

    I have no problem with bloggers advocating for candidates in the primaries, as long as they are up front about their opinions and not distorting the facts.

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    That has always been my view.

    Parent
    But Advocacy and News Are... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:31:03 AM EST
    not the same thing.   Mr/Ms DemfromCt believes that the blogs serve a news function.  That may be but the blogs value as a source of news is limited and even more so if they become advocates.  There is nothing wrong with advocacy (especially if it's done well and I would suggest that some of the prominent blogs were poor advocates for their candidate) but to the extent the advocacy function becomes primary, the news and information function becomes a a very minor consideration.  You wouldn't go to the Obama or Clinton website to get news other than news about what good things the candidate is doing or has done or is about to do.

    Parent
    And Dem from Ct's view is quite dated (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:30:03 PM EST
    in terms of the third point -- that "media narrative changes slowly."  That misses exactly the change that has come from insertion of the Internet, including blogs (but not limited to blogs, as 24/7 so-called "news" is an equally significant factor), into the political discourse.

    The media narrative now, as we have seen, can flipflop in a matter of minutes -- in part owing to the synergy of interactivity via blogs and other aspects of the Internet.  Reading that part of Dem from Ct's post is like reading a Journalism 101 textbook from the 1970s.  Reliance on dated sources, dated myths, may be ignorance, but I doubt it in this case.

    So it is a form of dishonesty -- nice as it is to do so to attempt to abdicate responsibility as a factor in forming a fast-changing media narrative.

    (Note:  I'm not saying all media narratives change fast.  I'm saying it is no longer true that all are in stasis.  What does seem to be so is that the ultimate aim of the media and their narrative is maintenance of the status quo -- but what it takes to maintain it can be redefined fast now, and the fragility of media today as well as the interactivity of the new technologies means a greater reliance on influence of readers, which would be good if media still attempted to maintain the integrity of their mission.  But, they don't.)

    Parent

    Every once in a while I stop by (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by jpete on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:00:32 AM EST
    DK to see what's happened to people I really like (most have left) or to see what's going on with a Hillary diary.  There's one today chiding people for citing the anonymous sources that prove that Bill used the some awful word.  

    So the accusation of "troll" showed up pretty quickly.  And why is the diarist a troll?  Because he's "trying to sow disunity."

    I guess that says it all:  agree or get out.

    Wow (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:05:42 AM EST
    It is really offputting the way they're going overboard with the "Bill Clinton isn't being a team player" stories.

    They spent months attacking him and trying to get rid of him, and now they still want to talk about him even though they've ostensibly won.

    Parent

    Well, it is a democratice site....Wait! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jpete on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:26:02 AM EST
    That was some time ago.  Now it is an Obama site.  So I guess the Clinton's will remain an obsession.  Scary.

    Parent
    Next time I'll use the preview! nt (none / 0) (#50)
    by jpete on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    Same with the MSM (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:45:20 AM EST
    Most of them are personally obsessed with the Clintons in various weird ways, but I think they've also discovered that stuff about the Clntons gets substantially better ratings/page views, etc., than anything else in politics.  So I think the producers of TV shows like Hardball are constantly on the lookout for any fragment of anything about either Clinton that can be made the focus of discussion. That's my guess, anyway.

    It's like the tabloid shows. There's an insatiable long-term appetite in the public for OJ Simpson, so if he so much as passes gas, they do a story about it.


    Parent

    Their ratings aren't such that they care (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Pol C on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    At least, I can't imagine they would. Matthews typically comes in third behind Shepard Smith and Lou Dobbs in ratings. He talks about the Clintons all the time because he's just thoroughly hung up on them. Personally, I think it's because they're the same age as him, their prominence in politics isn't ranked by anyone, and their accomplishments are galaxies beyond his. He has to tear them down just to make up for his own narcissistic sense of inadequacy. I refuse to watch him, but my girlfriend does, and I made a bet with her that whenever he could go ten minutes without mentioning one of the Clintons, I would give her twenty bucks. I have yet to pay anything out, and I don't expect to for the rest of the campaign season. From what I've seen, if I'd made the same bet vis-a-vis Dobbs or Smith, my girlfriend could probably count on an extra hundred of income a week.

    Parent
    I think his obsesson (none / 0) (#83)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:06:42 PM EST
    about the Clinton's, particularly Bill, is really about sex. (sorta snark but sorta not)

    Parent
    Oh, sorry, they *always* care (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:42:32 PM EST
    about ratings.  Always.  Their producers' jobs depend on ratings, and not just sheer numbers but desirable demographic groups-- which just happen to match almost perfectly with Obama fans, btw.

    I agree with you entirely about the obsession, so it's not as if their producers were requiring them to do stuff they don't want to do.  But they can now get ratings on a minute-by-minute basis and they scrutinize them incredibly carefully to see which topics/guests/hosts give them a little bump and which ones make people turn the channel.

    No matter how personally obsessed Matthews et al are with the Clintons, they would not be continuing to devote segment after segment after segment to speculation about them if they didn't get better ratings than most other topics.

    Parent

    Occasionally scanning the titles (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    of the diaries on the DK rec list is like finding yourself bored in the grocery store check out line and scanning headlines there :)  

    Parent
    I never realized before how many similarities ... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM EST
    ... there were between Markos and Bat Boy but now I wonder how I ever missed it!

    Parent
    You are a braver person ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:32:10 AM EST
    than I am.

    Parent
    it's just curiosity. (none / 0) (#57)
    by jpete on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:46:03 AM EST
    I think that mostly kills just cats.  One of whom is a very dear family member, but still....

    Parent
    What blogs do well (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Coral on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:04:15 AM EST
    Analysis of issues where the writer has an area of expertise -- examples, Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel), and Jeralyn here on criminal defense and legal issues. Also Juan Cole, on Iraq and the Arab world.

    Advocacy and opinion from perspectives not available in mainstream media -- example, this blog, plus dailykos (though I no longer read it), Open Left, Echidne, Feministing. The best was Billmon, alas, no longer blogging.

    Sifting through the news and highlighting stories, with links, that I might have missed. ThinkProgress and MediaMatters come to mind here.

    Exposure of media bias and contradictions. Any number of blogs that contrasted treatment of Clinton vs. Obama and the sexism of reporting on Clinton.

    Investigative journalism, in cases where the mainstream media is not reporting and sources have no place else to go. Josh Marshall did a great job in the Attorney General scandal at Talking Points Memo, so with adequate funding and enthusiasm there is the possibility of some investigative reporting, though TPM in my opinion has spread itself too thin.

    Live blogging of events that are not covered live in traditional media. The Libby trial, for example.

    All of these are aspects of journalism.

    But actual reporting, especially "beat" and foreign reporting takes time, resources, and credentials that make it very difficult, but not impossible for individual bloggers to do.

    I do think we are moving to a new model of news. That has happened in the area of dissemination, but not as much in original fact-gathering, which the traditional newspapers do the best (despite biases and reduced resources), IMO.

    Accuracy in and of itself requires vigilance, integrity, oversight, and accountability. Recently, even the most reputable news organizations have been found lacking. Judy Miller, anyone?


    For a long time, I believed the 'net ... (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:09:17 AM EST
    ... would bring us to a more informed politics, with sharper engagements on the issues and quicker marginalization of nonsense. (I naturally thought this would lend a gradual progressive tilt to the landscape.)

    Nearly twenty years ago, I sketched out a rough description of something like blogs, and hyperlinks, and threaded comments, and their interaction with standard-order journalism.

    Then we actually built the stuff, and it all went horribly wrong. Emergent properties, and all that.

    I think there was a proving of a point (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:12:45 AM EST
    Marcos said he was sending in his primary ballot and voting for Obama because: He really liked Hillary but didn't like the people around her. He would not vote for Edwards because he took public financing. He thought Obama's speeches had no substance but basically, Obama was left standing. I think after that it became a personal endeavor to over come the odds and prove that blogs could be a deciding factor.

    I say this because of the Lamont or Harold Ford pushes. It was sooooo important to have your candidate defeat Lieberman in the primary. Marcos even made great commercials with him. But, there was not as much a push once the primary was over. They had proven a point and 'won' for their candidate. With Harold Ford, it started out heavily in favor of and then it peaked out. Proves another point. "You need us. We can make a difference"

    Can you imagine if DKos had taken a position as the biggest blog for the one he really liked? The one who stood up for them when they were getting criticized and not the one who doesn't even like them? Maybe a difference? Maybe all of us on the same page? Maybe it was just all about having power. Money always works but power is the craving.

    Shorter DemFromCT (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    "We're fair and balanced".

    Sounds like another propaganda channel I know.

    Everyone has biases, but many times (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    it isn't about bias, it is about lying to promote an agenda.  That is unacceptable...as is being insulted constantly by those who disagree with your posts.  You cannot strong-arm someone into seeing things your way, like is being attempted at many of the blogs.  

    No bigger liars and cons than the Major Media (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by fctchekr on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    I've been getting my news from many sources including conservative media since the Obama/Clinton race was underway. It became fairly obvious that the so-called Liberal media outlets were providing biased coverage. No one is fair.  We all have our own beliefs and we gravitate to places that are closer to them than others.I think Pew did research on this. Anyway, partisanship is counter productive. We disagree and that's good, but as long as there's all the gamesmanship and party rivalry, we will have government to match. Yes, we need to get rid of the pettyiness! But, it won't happen if the media has anything to do about it. They eat petty 24/7.

    Petty is as Petty Does (none / 0) (#75)
    by fctchekr on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    OK, so I'm hung up on the fact that a whopping number of us are petty!!

    And ya know what? When we stop buying into what the media is selling, and we stop watching, they just might get it.  

    But, as long as the petty game is going on, the petty express will keep on filling those seats!

    Parent

    There is so little jounarnalist left (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:14:37 PM EST
    few are objective in reporting; most as Dowd says are opinion pieces, like reading a tabloid.

    I don't know how it got this way but I have a feeling they were so fearful of their bottom line they felt they had to keep up with the internet.  I observe that they are still doing that in creating blogs for every Tom Dick harry and Louise in journalism.

    It's so unprofessional and so tacky to see. Ugh

    getting news from blogs (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    is something I've started trying to do since Hillary conceded. (She wasn't on the screen anymore so it didn't light up;)) Could say that, but the truth is I never wrote a comment or read a blog until 3-4 weeks ago.

    My son was the one who blogged or chatted.

    The blatant sexism in the campaign pushed me to make a first comment.

    However the main reason I'm trying to get news from blogs is a total aversion to the MSM. Every time I see TV news I just want to put my foot thru the screen. I don't trust any channel any more. And to tell you the truth I don't much like blogs either. What I like to do is read the comments and follow the links people post.

    Internet provides access to liars and con artists (none / 0) (#47)
    by pluege on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:23:52 AM EST
    in the end, truth, and even to some extent reality, are malleable, subject to perspective, context, content, and importantly, missing content. It is this malleability of truth and reality that makes concentration of communication so very very dangerous (a.k.a the destruction, distortion, and fall of the US since 1980). The unavoidable truthiness of truth is also why the internet is so very very important: the more people have access to the full spectrum of views (truthiness), the better they can discern their own truthiness.

    SHORTER POST: the internet facilitates for individuals, access to many many more liars and con artists than prior to the internet, and that is a good thing.

    Speaking of Honesty....... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Kefa on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:26:11 PM EST
    It is impossible to see ones heart but from where I sit....it is what I have come to like about it here. I may not agree about everything but it seems you folks try your best to be honest. That's all one can ask these days.

    i'll be the resident chops buster: (none / 0) (#82)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:47:32 PM EST
    most people don't get their news (or whatever you choose to call it) from the internet. perhaps in the 18-34 demo they do, but that's probably it, and it's a mighty small slice of the total electorate. a slice made even smaller by their historic tendency to not vote.

    in consequence, only a very small % of the electorate is being affected by the views and opinions of the various and sundry bloggers, hardly sufficient to turn an election.

    most people get their "news-n-views" from the traditional media: network tv & print. they still have the greatest overall influence on the general population.

    this site is but one small example: good as it is, it's influence, based strictly on #'s, doesn't come close to registering even a minor blip on the overall screen.

    even taken as a whole, the net's effect might be a 1 on the richter scale, maybe.

    Small as it is, it's a desirable demographic for (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:28:15 PM EST
    ... advertisers (and political parties) because the 18-34 are at that useful stage where malleability meets disposable income.

    As purchasers, they're not AS likely to be rooted to factors like family responsibility, and more inclined to act immediately on Teh Latest Hot Thing, once told what it is. They can also be massaged better towards long-termed "brand loyalty". (Not my view, as I hate cherished democratic values being shunted into the category of "brand", but these aren't my politics, either.)

    Parent

    The Post has a point (none / 0) (#88)
    by koshembos on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    True, any single blog is a reflection of its authors biases, but the facts tend to be reported correctly. Network new is the company's store. You get your coupons and you must buy what it is on the shelves.

    The Internet is a dynamic source with different perspectives and different quantities. Buying off the Internet, therefore, provides a more up to date more varied news products the the Network's store.

    On more on the side of the post then BTD in this case.

    But, one still hears people say they (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    get all the news from blogs. I don't think very many people get news from print media at this point.  Look at all the discussion at Talk Left about Fox, MSNBC, Matthews, Russert, Olbermann, et al.  

    Also, in Jeralyn's defense, and in the interest of accuracy, she first supported Edwards.  

    Footnote:  why the heck can't bloggers be investigative journalists?  Marshall did a pretty good job early on, with assistance from his readers as to the positions, for example, of elected Congresspersons.  

    I will defend the idea of getting accurate news (none / 0) (#92)
    by Faust on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:08:48 PM EST
    from the internet to this extent:

    If you keep your eyes open, and you visit MANY sites with contrasting points of view, you will get a composite picture of what is going on that will likely be far better than what you could ever get simply watching dominant media channels.

    In particular it is good to look for "lone voices in the wilderness." While sometimes such voices are simply wrong, more often than not they are critical counter perspectives that provide a balance to dominant discourses.