Deep Thinkers

Peter Daou, currently at Salon and formerly with the Kerry campaign, writes on The Triangle and the Limits of Blog Power and charts the future of the blogosphere:

After a year of my life spent at the intersection of pre-blog and post-blog political thinking, and with Bush getting the second term he craved, one question has preoccupied me since last November: What is the scope of netroots power? Put differently: How influential are bloggers?

...It might be easier to approach the question by setting a more specific, and admittedly somewhat arbitrary, definition of political influence: the capacity to alter or create conventional wisdom. And a working definition of “conventional wisdom” is a widely held belief on which most people act. Finally, by “people” I mean all Americans, regardless of ideology or political participation.

The Triangle
Looking at the political landscape, one proposition seems unambiguous: blog power on both the right and left is a function of the relationship of the netroots to the media and the political establishment. Forming a triangle of blogs, media, and the political establishment is an essential step in creating the kind of sea change we’ve seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Simply put, without the participation of the media and the political establishment, the netroots alone cannot generate the critical mass necessary to alter or create conventional wisdom. This is partly a factor of audience size, but it’s also a matter, frankly, of trust and legitimacy. Despite the astronomical growth of the netroots (see Bowers and Stoller for hard numbers), and the slow and steady encroachment of bloggers on the hallowed turf of Washington’s opinion-makers, it is still the Russerts and Broders and Gergens and Finemans, the WSJ, WaPo and NYT editorial pages, the cable nets, Stewart and Letterman and Leno, and senior elected officials, who play a pivotal role in shaping people’s political views. That is not to say that blogs can’t be the first to draw attention to an issue, as they often do, but the half-life of an online buzz can be measured in days and weeks, and even when a story has enough netroots momentum to float around for months, it will have little effect on the wider public discourse without the other sides of the triangle in place. Witness the Plame case, an obsession of left-leaning bloggers long before the media and the political establishment got on board and turned it into a political liability for Rove and Bush.

...Bloggers can exert disproportionate pressure on the media and on politicians. Reporters, pundits, and politicians read blogs, and, more importantly, they care what bloggers say about them because they know other reporters, pundits, and politicians are reading the same blogs. It’s a virtuous circle for the netroots and a source of political power. The netroots can also bring the force of sheer numbers to bear on a non-compliant politician, reporter, or media outlet. Nobody wants a flood of complaints from thousands of angry activists. And further, bloggers can raise money, fact-check, and help break stories and/or keep them in circulation long enough for the media and political establishment to pick them up.

Consequently, bloggers, though unable to change conventional wisdom on their own, are able to use these proficiencies and resources to persuade the media and political establishment to join them in pushing a particular story or issue.

Mr. Daou then identifies blog strategies for the left and right, or, (let me yield to his unstated preference), the Party of Evil and the Party of Virtue.  In his view, the Party of evil has it all buttoned down:

With a well-developed echo chamber and superior top-down discipline, the right has a much easier time forming the triangle. Fox News, talk radio, Drudge, a well-trained and highly visible punditocracy, and a lily-livered press corps takes care of the media side of the triangle. Iron-clad party loyalty – with rare exceptions – and a willingness of Republican officials to jump on the Limbaugh-Hannity bandwagon du jour takes care of the party establishment side of the triangle. The rightwing netroots, therefore, is already working within the triangle on most issues. Their primary strategic aim is to prevent the left from forming its own triangle, as occurred with Katrina.

No mention of the coordination and communication benefits of Rove's mind rays.

For the Party of Virtue, bringing truth to the world is a bit more complicated:

Whereas rightwing bloggers can rely on their leadership and the rightwing noise machine to build the triangle, left-leaning bloggers face the challenge of a mass media consumed by the shop-worn narrative of Bush the popular, plain-spoken leader, and a Democratic Party incapacitated (for the most part) by the focus-grouped fear of turning off "swing voters" by attacking Bush. For the progressive netroots, the past half-decade has been a Sisyphean loop of scandal after scandal melting away as the media and party establishment remain disengaged.

It would seem reasonable to conclude, then, that the best strategy for the progressive netroots is to go after the media and Democratic Party leaders and spend less time and energy attacking the Bush administration. If the netroots alone can’t change the political landscape without the participation of the media and Democratic establishment, then there’s no point wasting precious online space blasting away at Republicans while the other sides of the triangle stand idly by. Indeed, blog powerhouses like

Kos and Josh Marshall have taken an aggressive stance toward Democratic politicians they see as selling out core Democratic Party principles.  Kos’s willingness to attack the DLC is mocked on the right, but it is precisely the right’s fear that Kos will “close the triangle” that causes them to protest so loudly. Similarly, when Atrios, Digby, Oliver Willis, and so many other progressive bloggers attack the media, they are leveraging whatever power they have to compel the media to assume a role as the third side of their triangle.

Emphasis added, and let me have a show of hands among the right wing bloggers who have been afraid that Kos, in attacking the DLC, was going to improve the message discipline of the Dem Party. 

I lose the last vapor trail of his argument right here:

Setting aside 2006 congressional prospects and the remote hope for progressives that Bush will be impeached, the grand political battle of the next three years is over Bush’s legacy.

For rightwing bloggers who have fiercely defended one of the most controversial and polarizing presidents in our history, their fortunes will rise or fall with his approval ratings. The blind allegiance to Bush and the furious assault on his detractors will be vindicated if he leaves office with popular support.

Really?  I suspect Mr. Daou has been beguiled by the many "Dear Leader" jibes that are a staple of a certain type of left-wing blog.  Over in my slice of reality, I could rally up plenty of right wing bloggers who couldn't give two cents for Bush's approval ratings.  Getting proper conservatives elected in 2006 and 2008, and finding someone (anyone!) to provide credible leadership on Iraq specifically and terror generally - that will excite right wing bloggers.  And yes, that goal may overlap with defending certain Bush legacy projects, such as Iraq, but let's not confuse tactics with objectives.

Jonah Goldberg can be dragged out as Exhibit A of Bush fatigue.  However, Jonah does diagnose the Democratic problem:

If you listened to the Democrats fight John Roberts this month, it’s impossible not to conclude the Democrats are a runt party and will remain one for a while. The gravitational pull of their base makes it all but impossible for them to attain escape velocity from Planet Permanent Minority.

The planet in question might be Atrios.

UPDATE:  The Anonymous Liberal encourages progressives and others to get the message.  But down in the comments here, skeptics abound.

More skepticism from a fellow who remembers Rathergate and wonders why Daou does not.

Comments

[boris]

controversial and polarizing presidents in our history

Any comparably successful conservative Republican president would be getting the same bum rap. The polarization they blame on W is really their own derangement brought about by disconnect from reality.

In a laughable effort to maintain that their delusional distopia is what's really real, they apply the assertivly ridiculous label "reality based" to their psychosis.

[Seven Machos]

What has Bush done that is controversial? Invaded Iraq? You could argue it was dumb and/or wrong, but not controversial. Getting rid of Saddam had been U.S. policy since at least 1991. Invading Afghanistan? That enjoyed at least 90 percent of U.S. support?

Lowering taxes? Education reform? What?

Boris is right. The Left is doing the polarizing, and paying a might political price for it as well.

[Cecil Turner]

"the netroots alone cannot generate the critical mass necessary . . ."

I think he's dead-on on this one. But they are able to leverage media outlets (especially if they can demonstrate the correctness of a position, which distributed net fact-checkers seem much better at than legacy media). There are always competitors, or media outlets of a particular political bent willing to take on a story once it's been vetted.

"With a well-developed echo chamber and superior top-down discipline, the right has a much easier time forming the triangle."

[chortle] Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the left-leaning MSM tends to "spike" stories the right wants aired (and hence there's a lot of material out there).

[TigerHawk]

Democrats seem baffled by Republican "message discipline," as if it is something that is a function of the managerial genius of Karl Rove. In fact, the relative "message discipline" (or lack thereof) of right and left derives from the ideology and professional background of the two parties.

Republicans of national stature are usually executives or soldiers. Democrats of national stature are usually lawyers or academics. Executives and soldiers understand the importance of sublimating their own preferences to the objectives of the group. Neither lawyers nor professors are known for this tendancy.

It goes more deeply than that. Republican activists at the grass roots come from churches or small businesses. Democratic activists come from "social change" organizations, NGOs, and so forth. The former have no particular respect for "dissent," so even if they might disagree with a course of action, they will go along with it, perhaps after having expressed their disagreement. The heroes of the right are often authority figures. The left admires "dissent," and "speaking truth to power," and its heroes challenge authority. Who is going to have more message discipline?

The Democrats used to have message discipline, but this was when industrial labor unions were strong. Like corporate executives and military officers, union leaders understood the importance of organizational authority. With the decline of the influence of labor unions and the rise of anti-establishment professional "activists," the ranks of Democrats do not include large numbers of people who believe in following orders for their own sake. Without such people, "message discipline" is very hard to maintain.

[Anonymous Liberal]

I think Daou's description of the triangle effect is exactly right. You can take issue with his historical narrative of how the various parties have used this triangle, but it's hard to argue with his basic premise: that in order to shape conventional wisdom, you have to have the netroots, the mainstream media, and the party establishment all repeating the same general narrative or talking point. When that trifecta occurs, the narrative in question will invariably become a part of the public consciousness. It will become the conventional wisdom. I also think it's fair to say that conservatives have been far more successful in the last decade or so at completing the triangle and influencing conventional wisdom. Their political gains during that period is a testament to this success.

That being said, the conservative triangle seems to have broken down recently (especially post Katrina). The mainstream media has been fairly reluctant to repeat White House talking points, and, as you point out, conservative bloggers/commentators (to their credit) have been fairly open in expressing their dissatisfaction with various Bush policies (particularly spending and cronyism).

But the fact that conservatives have been openly critical of Bush lately doesn't undercut Daou's basic analysis. Indeed, it reaffirms it. It explains why the White House has been having such a hard time influencing public opinion of late. With a suddenly uncooperative media and blogosphere, Bush cannot complete the triangle. Not enough people are repeating White House talking points. (If anyone cares, I have a fairly lengthy post discussing Daou's piece at my own site.)

[TM]

(If anyone cares, I have a fairly lengthy post discussing Daou's piece at my own site.)

This site was built on shameless self-promotion - here is the link to Anon Lib. Eventually, I am even going to have time to read it.

[kim]

Here's bias:

Echo Chamber vs Sisyphean loop.

Besides, he's just wrong. The largest angle of that triangle is on approach to it's limit of 180 degrees, with the MSM at that angle. Then the figure will be a line connecting netroots to political establishment and gradually that line will shorten to a point. Poof, and a tip of the hat to Edwin A. Abbott.
================================

[Synova]

"...the conservative triangle seems to have broken down recently..."

This is wishful thinking. It's human nature, I think, to see whatever is happening *now* as different from what was happening before. The media has always been reluctant to repeat White House talking points and the fact that they may not always be unfailingly critical is not an indication otherwise. Conservative bloggers (many of whom are actually libertarian or objectivist, but that's another story) have always freely criticized Bush. There's nothing "lately" about it.

This doesn't, however, change the fact that conservatives do have better message discipline. No one figures that Michelle Malkin is abandoning the conservative ship because she tears into Bush about border control at least once a day. So where is the message discipline? It's in the robust nature of the message. We're the good guys. Freedom is the goal we have for ourselves and others. The future is bright. None of those things is impacted by Glenn Reynolds expressing his disgust at Rebublican Porkers. If we're the good guys, criticisms are nothing more than the desire to be better. It's like the military... no one expects any action, ever, to go off flawlessly. The after action reports are to find out how to do it better next time.

None of this causes splintering or instability in the message. It does confuse a whole lot of liberals, though, who seem convinced that conservatives must be wearing blinders on the simple evidence of apparent loyalty.

It's all BS.

[kim]

He's wrong not just because the MSM is not an inevitable part of the dialogue beween roots and tops, but because he has serously mischaracterized the blogospheres.

I see a uniform message from the left at least partly because that blogosphere has so many toeing the party line of the extremists. The other side of the blogosphere, plethoric with ideas and dissent, simply isn't all thinking in unison. I don't get out much so I may be seriously in error, but that is my experience.
========================================

[Cecil Turner]

"it's hard to argue with his basic premise: that in order to shape conventional wisdom, you have to have the netroots, the mainstream media, and the party establishment all repeating the same general narrative or talking point."

I'm having a hard time seeing the need for a trifecta. The mainstream media alone can very adequately shape conventional wisdom on any particular subject . . . especially in the absence of a credible alternative narrative. As above, I've little doubt the blogosphere, by virtue of the relatively limited readership of any particular blog, must leverage MSM assets in order to be effective. And perhaps the party establishment message must converge to in order to garner significant political advantage (though that link seems less critical), but it certainly doesn't appear necessary to shape public opinion.

"This site was built on shameless self-promotion - here is the link to Anon Lib. Eventually, I am even going to have time to read it."

More diversity in viewpoints is always welcome (and shameless promotion is key). But I have to admit disagreeing with every one of A.L.'s points, from the significance of the Katrina buzz to the main Democratic disadvantage in massaging blogospheric CW (in my opinion, the liberal slant of the MSM). This statement was noteworthy:

The obvious implication is that most DailyKos readers, like Kos himself, are practical and aware of political reality.

Might I proffer an alternate implication (bolstered, in my opinion, by last year's results): Kos and friends are so far out of the political mainstream that they can't spot a winner?

[Synova]

I think that it's abject failure of the imagination, Cecil. Not only can they not spot a winner, they can't even *imagine* how anyone could fail to love their guy. Even when people explained in painful detail they still could only imagine that, for instance, the Swift Vets were a calculated political lie because no one could *really* feel the way they said they felt about Kerry.

Heh.

I haven't looked at Anonymous Liberal's blog yet, but he (she?) strikes me as a rational person. Disagreement does not a Kool Aid addict make, and diversity of viewpoints *must* be welcome.

It's important.

[TM]

Obvious points missed by Daou (and he would no doubt argue vigorously against some of them):

(1) Reps already have their message machine of talk radio, etc - well, yes, and there is a reason it is called "alternative" media - we have Rush and Drudge, libs have NPR and the NY Times.

(2) Better message discipline on right - uh, huh, and Andrew Sullivan, once one of the top righty bloggers, never defected. Can anyone name a comparable defection from the left?

(3) Katrina showed the ability of a left triangle to affect the CW? How about, "reality" showed the ability of the media to affect the CW? Brian Williams, emblematic of newsman everywhere, was going to find a problem and howl for a government solution; Fox newsies were as critical of government and Washington as everyone else. In a crisis, journalists expect Washington to act - this is a standard element of the litany of lib media bias, was in effect during Katrina, and would have happened with or without the cheerleading of lefty blogs.

A better example for Daou would be the role of lefty blogs in the Soc Sec debate.

On katrina, if anything I would say that the righty blogs were the only successful aspect of the right push-back on Katrina. Who found those buses parked outside the Superdome? Not Karl Rove, and not Fox. Who busted that lying fool from Meet The Press (Broussard, whose aide's mother did *not* drown on Friday after FEMA faiked to come running) - not Rove, nor Fox.

(4) This point was devastatingly effective, but I have forgotten it...

(5) Eason Jordan is an interestring story which prompted speculation that blogs had transcended their reliance on the MSM - the *first* mention of the Jordan scandal in the Times was the story announcing his resignation.

That aside, the notion that blogs need to leverage through the MSM is hardly a new insight. Offhand, I would say a key goal of every blog crusade is to get the MSM to pick up the story.

[Anonymous Liberal]

"I'm having a hard time seeing the need for a trifecta. The mainstream media alone can very adequately shape conventional wisdom on any particular subject."

This is a good point, Cecil. I think you're right. I'd argue, however, that while mainstream journalists have the power to shape conventional wisdom on their own, they're generally not a very creative or reflective bunch. They're lazy. In most cases journalists simply repeat someone else's narrative or talking point. The key for both liberals and conservatives is getting the media to adopt your framing of a particular issue. That's where blogs come in. And when blogs and politicians are saying the same thing, the media is far more likely to listen.

As for my comment about Kos readers, I was not defending their substantive positions on all issues (that would be silly). My point was that most of them are conscious of the fact that much of the country does not share their liberal views and are therefore willing to support a candidate (e.g. Clark) who is far from a hardcore liberal. In other words, it's possible to have views that are outside of the mainstream and still have a good sense of what the mainstream is. For example, I can believe that marijuana should be legalized while at the same time understanding that it would be counterproductive to include such a position in the party platform. I think that despite their substantive views, most DailyKos readers are more attuned to political reality than people give them credit for. That being said, please don't lump me in with that crowd. :)

TM, thanks for the link.

[MeTooThen]

Um, no.

Mr. Daou's problem, as well as those on the blogosphere-left, is their unending cognitive dissonance secondary to their ability to "see the issues more clearly," "feel more deeply," and to "understand the problems better," than the minions of Rush and Rove, but despite their superior attributes, they remain out of power.

Like, how can it be thus?

Ouch.

That's gotta hurt.

All that narcissistic injury.

And narcissistic rage.

Sigh.

The Left has become the Borderline Party.

No wait, the Histrionic Party.

No, the Grandiose Party.

The Dirty Axis-II Party

Sucks to be them.

What's more, the real failure of the Left has been it's metamorphosis into the Reactionary Party, totally unable to adapt to the world around them.

"The times they are a-changin'."

Mr. Daou's ideas here are all laughable nonsense.

Really.

Wait...

...

Sorry, RovEvil just beamed some new talking points in. You know, top-down control, triangles and stuff.

OK, where were we?

[Anonymous Lunatic]

Kos’s willingness to attack the DLC is mocked on the right, but it is precisely the right’s fear that Kos will “close the triangle” that causes them to protest so loudly.

That's right! That's why I'm protesting! Please, please don't repudiate the group that gave the Democratic Party its only successful President in the last forty years. Those of us on the right don't want to run against a sucession of righteous liberals like Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry! They fill us with dread! We want to face genuinely tough opposition tickets, like the twice-victorious ticket of DLC Chair Bill Clinton and DLC co-founder Al Gore. Or like the popular-vote-winning ticket of DLC founding member Al Gore and DLC Chair Joe Lieberman!

[Steven J.]

(1) Reps already have their message machine of talk radio, etc - well, yes, and there is a reason it is called "alternative" media - we have Rush and Drudge, libs have NPR and the NY Times.

Oh please, stop "working the refs." Neither the Times nor NPR are liberal. OTOH, the Eggman is just another party operative and PigBoy was made an honorary Congressman by Newt Gingrich.

[Steven J.]

(2) Better message discipline on right

Yes, it is much, much better. Here's a bit on why:

"One afternoon late last month, I paid a visit to the offices of Americans for Tax Reform, the conservative lobbying outfit headed by Grover Norquist.
Each Wednesday morning, more than a hundred leading conservative activists, policy pundits, talk-show producers and journalists, joined by assorted Hill staff members and White House aides, gather in Americans for Tax Reform's conference room to discuss the issues of the day, from prescription drugs to school choice."

Breaking the Code
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/magazine/16TAXES.html?pagewanted=all&position=
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

Published: January 16, 2005

[kim]

NPR can't be liberal. It's reality-based.

It was a dark and stormy night. But don't worry, it's TUESDAY night and soon the gang of 100 will gather to make all the bad go away.
==============================================

[kim]

I think Katrina and journalism was untypical, so we shouldn't try to draw too much from it.

That event was a great big cry for Mama. Baby threw a tantrum when it found out that Mama wasn't hovering; she'd been blown away, too.

MSM is going to be in BlameBush mode for the next three years in an attempt to line the political cradle for its next annointee.
===================================================

[Bonnie]

Bush is the worst president ever. All of my colleagues who have voted for him now agree that it was a horrible mistake.

[kim]

My Bonnie flies over the ocean.
My Bonnie flies over the sea.
Her droplets of soft information,
Bedeck all our reality.
===============================

[boris]

Bush is the worst president ever

If Iraq forms a workable democracy, history will record W as one of the all time greats.

Sorry to ruin your delusion.

[boris]

Other posters have mentioned this, but it bears repeating:

The reason conservatives have a more consistent message is because we live on planet earth. We perceive the same world and our ideas and ideals are consistent with that world rather than the other way 'round.

OTOH no two schizophrenics even live in the same universe.

[Cecil Turner]

"In most cases journalists simply repeat someone else's narrative or talking point."

And in most cases stories start with a liberal slant, so any subsequent change is more likely to favor conservatives . . . which perhaps explains why the right is generally credited as being more effective in altering CW.

"The key for both liberals and conservatives is getting the media to adopt your framing of a particular issue."

Yes, and then it has to resonate with the public. But it doesn't have to be all the media . . . just enough to get the desired version "out there." And in fact, a weak competing story or denial probably helps keep the buzz alive (e.g., RatherGate).

"In other words, it's possible to have views that are outside of the mainstream and still have a good sense of what the mainstream is."

I'm sure that's true, but I doubt that's what's happening at DKos. On the specific point, I suspect they've correctly concluded that national security is the killer issue, and seek a candidate with military credentials as an inoculation. (And adoption of that tactical position is blinding them to the obvious downside: that he's a very weak candidate.)

"Neither the Times nor NPR are liberal."

It's all relative . . . so if you're looking at it from sufficiently far left, I'm sure that's true.

[TM]

Neither the Times nor NPR are liberal.

Well, if you stand far enough to the left, everything is off to the right.

If I were offering constructive strategic advice to the left, this "no media bias" meme would be a great place to start.

I think we all understand the importance to the left of pretending that there is not a natural liberal tilt to the MSM - by pretending that there is no lib bias, they can justify screaming that the press needs to move even more to the left.

However, a consequence of this is that lefty media strategies become Copernician - by insisting on a faulty premise, they arrive at conclusions that make no sense.

For example, from Daou:

...left-leaning bloggers face the challenge of a mass media consumed by the shop-worn narrative of Bush the popular, plain-spoken leader,

Well. If you begin your media strategy with the premise that the Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, and NPR are locked into this vision of Bush, you might choose to implement Plan A.

OTOH, a reality based strategy would recognize that these outfits think Bush is even phonier than the absurd clowns coughed up by the Dems (the Times actually endorsed the comical Kerry).

Having recognized that the problem is not that the media loves Bush, but rather that the Dem message is incoherent, often insane, and articulated by painfully phony candidates, a different media strategy would suggest itself.

But I'm not suggesting it.

[TM]

... incoherent, often insane

That merits a teeny bit of justification. My view is that the Streisand/Kos left would like to see a Dem candidate who favored higher taxes, immediate exit from Iraq, elimination of the death penalty, advocacy for gay marriage, abortion on demand, stricter gun control, and an expansion of welfare benefits.

However, many of the folks in that wing of the party also recognize that such a candidate is not exactly electable, at least nationally.

So we end up with these absurd candidates (like Kerry, or Clark) where there is a yawning chasm between the words coming out of their mouth and the words their supporters want to hear.

Incredibly, the press and public pick up on this phoniness. And we all wonder whether the supporters are cheering because they know something about the candidate that we don't.

Or rather than Kerry and Clark, we could even annoy Bob Somerby and go back to the Gore campaign for examples. Yes, some of the specific story lines picked by the press (invented the internet, Love Story, Love Canal) were distorted. But in the grand scheme of the campaign, we had Gore denouncing Bush's irresponsible tax cut proposals while offering his own tax cuts of around a trillion dollars. And that comes off as phony.

Well, as long as the Dems persist in believing that there problem is the media, they will fail to look in the right place for the problem. Which makes finding a solution less likely.

[kim]

And last year we had the delicious spectacle of the MSM sensing the phoniness of Kerry and being absolutely struck mute at articulating any such suggestion.
=================================================

[Toby Petzold]

I blogged on this article a few days ago.

Notice how Daou never mentions Rathergate?

[richard mcenroe]

"Suddenly" unccoperative MSM???

[Forbes]

Daou's argument is the only sign I need to keep me comfortably smug that the Dems will remain in the dark for a long time--though not necessarily a good thing for America because we need a competitive political marketplace, too.

His commentary is symptomatic of Bush Derangement Syndrome, as a few examples demonstrate...

That "[Jon] Stewart...play[s] a pivotal role in shaping people’s political views."

Please, his show is about fake news on Comedy Central. His notoriety is emblematic of the msm's political agenda. I dare say that the only time I've seen him discussed on right-leaning blogs was following his appearance on CNN's Crossfire.

"Fox News, talk radio...and a lily-livered press corps takes care of the media side of the triangle."

That's right, the cowardly folks at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS/NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, Time, and Newsweek are pushovers for the Bush Administration, and roll over for conservative causes! (And Dan Rather's TANG memo was authentic, right?)

What flavor Kool-Aid does Daou prefer?

"[L]eft-leaning bloggers face the challenge of a mass media consumed by the shop-worn narrative of Bush the popular, plain-spoken leader."

No doubt the reason I stopped buying the NYTimes was due to their ever present shop-worn narrative of Bush the popular...ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz. LOL

No less than Howard Fineman suggested that the msm was an arm of the Democratic Party, and wasn't it Evan Thomas who suggested that the msm would deliver 15 points for Kerry?

Until Democrats learn that it's the substance, rather than the form, of their argument that matters most to voters, they'll continue to wander in the desert.

[richard mcenroe]

It's real simple. I blog to hear about things I NEVER get from television or newspapers here in LA.

I've NEVER heard ANYTHING at a lefty blog that I wasn't hearing from the LA Times, network news, or "my" Democratic Congressdrones. So why bother?

I think part of this swayve and nooanced theory of Daou's is that when all three legs of your triangle point the same way, it collapses...

[mhudson]

Excellent, thoughtful commentary and discussion on this thread. At the risk of adding one additional simplist point, i believe Mr, Daou is "Stuck on stupid."

[Old Grouch]

I see "Steven J." has hauled out the Confessore story as one reason the right has more "message discipline": It gets weekly marching orders/talking points from Grover Norquist.

Well, I can write a story like that, too:

Every morning, all across the country, thousands of editors, journalists, pundits, politicians, academics, and activists open their copies of The New York Times. There they learn what events and issues are newsworthy and important, and, perhaps more significantly, how those events should be framed and interpreted.

And my account is probably just as true as Confessore's, too. ;-)

[Steven J.]

OKAY, here's some backup for my claim that there is NO liberal media bias:

"There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about." - James Baker, quoted in Mark Hertsgaard, On Bended Knee: The Press
and the Reagan Presidency, NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1988, page 4.

"The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive," Buchanan said. "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage--all we could have asked." Buchanan says his rhetoric is not meant to stir hostilities toward the media. "For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on Earth does that."
WASHINGTON INSIGHT / Campaign '96; [Home Edition]
Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 14, 1996. pg. 5

[Steven J.]

That's right, the cowardly folks at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS/NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, Time, and Newsweek are pushovers for the Bush Administration,

Correct. This is from NYT shill David Brooks:

Moreover, on the Matthews Show, Brooks disclosed that "from Day One," the Bush White House "decided our public relations is not going to be honest," and that "privately they admit mistakes all the time."
BROOKS: From Day One, they had decided that our public relations is not going to be honest. Privately, they admit mistakes all the time. Publicly -- and I've had this debate with them since Day One; I always say admit a mistake, people will give you credit --
BROOKS: Not with him, but they represent what he believes, which is, if you admit a mistake, you get no credit from your enemies, and then you open up another week's story, because the admission of a little mistake leads to the admission of big mistakes and another week's story. It's totally tactical and totally insincere.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120003

[VictoriaG]

Uh, Steven J., did you look at the dates on your citations? 1996? 1988? Two examples from almost ten and twenty years ago do not make a very compelling argument for a lack of liberal media bias in *this* century.

Rathergate, Swift Boat Vets, the claim that the MSM would give Kerry fifteen points - these are all from the last election alone.

[Ian S.]

The right doesn't have better "message discipline", they're just more tolerant of people who aren't in total lockstep on things that matter less. To recycle Synova's example, Michelle Malkin's views on immigration and the WW2 detention of Japanese-Americans are not universal and probably not even majority among the right, but she's in step on the important stuff. In other words, the right knows when it's OK to disagree.

Whereas if you post on Kos that you're not sure it's helpful to compare Bush to Hitler, you are completely and totally out, and will be jumped on by the other posters and probably banned within seconds.

[Bezuhov]

The true left and the "right" are both correct about the media. It is reactionary both by the nature of its job (it reacts to things others are doing) and due to its corporate ownership.

The problem is that much of the "left" has itself become reactionary. Many true liberals have fled the left and now call themselves "right-wing", though they have little in common with the historical right. Such folks, who include among their number many of our best and brightest, rightly perceive the media to be hostile to their truly progressive interests. I incluse our current liberal president in this number.

My guess is the 20th century left fouled everything up when they decided to side with King John over Robin Hood, in hopes that their demographic strength would win them the crown.

[Dwilkers]

Its pointless to argue with someone that is seriously asserting the media is not liberal.

[Robin Roberts]

Indeed, Steven J.'s delusions are only self-delusions.

[klrfz1]

Obviously the media is not liberal because they LOVE Republican John McCain. The MSM also luvs, luvs, luvs Independent Jim Jeffords. Well, they used to.

Who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?

No, I am not serious! As if a few isolated examples make any kind of convincing argument.

[Synova]

Bezuhov says something that I've said lately as well (commenting on Baldilock's blog) that it seems that liberal or progressive values are common on the "right" since the right is "conserving" the progressive cultural movement of the last decades (social justice, big spending, etc.) while the "left" is all into isolationalism, a traditionally conservative value (no American life is worth ending the horror Iraqi's live with). It's not a perfect flip, of course. And it's also true that the group so far left that they believe the media as collaborating with Bush isn't representative of liberals or Dems.

[JorgXMckie]

Anyone offering mediamatters.com as a reliable basis for a discussion of bias is so seriously deluded as to be in need of serious medication. Not that I personally believe that being backed by a Bush-hating billionaire currency speculator who has damaged literally millions of poor citizens in the countries whose currency he de-stabilized is an indicator of any bias, mind you.

[Steve Poling]

I think the Right-Wing Blogs as well as those voices Mr. Daou termed "noise" provide value by bring up inconvenient stories ignored by MSM. The Swift Boat vets and the Rather/Burkett forged memoranda jumped from Blogs to "noise" and made its way to so many watercooler conversations that the MSM had to take official notice.

This can work both ways, but the anti-Bush disclosures have sounded more like Vince Foster murder and Mena AK drug trafficking conspiracy theorizing.

The lefty blogs have so consistently repeated the message that chimpy bushitler is the DEVIL that when the more venal matters of cronyism and corruption may exist, they've already shot their wad.

Blogs have the power to take a single issue or scandal and flame it to life such as Rather's Memo-quiddick, but they do not suffice to take down Mr. Rather.

Frankly, the arguments of the Left seem old and tired. They just want more of what they got in the New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society. Same goes for Civil Rights. Has anybody told the Democratic Party that the Berlin Wall has fallen and Eurosocialism is quickly going bancrupt?

Conversely, the Republican coalition has a lot of people with good intentions toward the poor, but reject Socialist means of helping them. This has created creative policy proposals and novel approaches.

I think Mr. Daou misrepresented his candidate's Party incoherence versus stale message and his opponent's iron discipline. In terms of message, something beats nothing every time.

[Steven J.]

Anyone offering mediamatters.com as a reliable basis for a discussion of bias is so seriously deluded

That's just where the quotes come from. ABC does not provide free transcripts.

[Steven J.]

Uh, Steven J., did you look at the dates on your citations? 1996? 1988?

The GOP has been whining about liberal bias for decades so I merely pointed out that they have been lying for decades.

Here's a more recent quote from one of your own:

"We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually." Matt Labash, 32, is a senior writer with The Weekly Standard, Http://journalismjobs.com/matt_labash.cfm, Interview with Matt Labash, The Weekly Standard -- May
2003

[Steven J.]

Not that I personally believe that being backed by a Bush-hating billionaire currency speculator

Do you have any proof that MediaMatters is backed by Soros?

[gopsithlord]

I think the idea of a "triangle" vs "the echo chamber" is a good argument to explore. But while conservatives have argued (not unjustly) the various biases of the MSM which constituted an echo chamber of conventional (and liberal more often than not) opinion, they were always ignored as lone, fringe voices. This is before the popularization of cable and the internet which would allow them to organize and over time form their collective counter argument to the MSM.

Liberals were good at creating an echo chamber long before Karl Rove or conservative created their own "triangle" (talk radio, Fox, and to a lesser extent Drudge) and as a counter. What liberals were simply not good at was creating a counter triangle of their own political opinion. There have been many arguments as to why this is, but nevertheless the result has shaped the perception that the Left is out of ideas and only knows how to attack, which is the surest sign of a losing majority if ever there was one.

All this aside, while I think there's a limit to blogging in general, it's wrong to underestimate it's energies within the base. If you're trying to expand majorities however, blogging does not strike me as that kind of lifeblood medium. Such was the case with the last election: the Left's blogs proclaimed that it was they who had the momentum, but in reality it was simply the base talking to itself. If any minority, let alone the fanatical fringe of one, creates enough noise, delussion will swiftly follow.

That said, this was a sober article, but I still note that the rest of the blogosphere is less so as with each news paradigm, the Left transforms nearly anything into an attack of convenience on the president.

[Harry Arthur]

If the subject is bias, I'd recommend Bernie Goldberg's two excellent books: Bias and Arrogance both written by a news "insider".

[Greg F]

Do you have any proof that MediaMatters is backed by Soros?

See The Shadow Party by By David Horowitz and Richard Poe.

CAP helped launch Media Matters for America, a 501(c)(03) public charity better known for its Web site MediaMatters.org, which opened for business on May 3, 2004.

CAP (Center for American Progress) is one of Soros "seven sisters". The support is indirect.

Carlisle told Cybercast News Service, "While there is no evidence Soros gave directly to Brock and Media Matters, clearly Soros-funded groups have been instrumental in getting MMA started."