So Much For Solidarity: That Comments Policy Revised & Expanded, And Other Bloggy Digressions

To make Martin’s terse announcement below a little more multilateral and a little less unconsultatory and patriarchal (let’s practice what we preach) here’s my view on it.

I’m not a moderation fan, unless the blatant trollery gets really bad; what’s an argument without opposition? But that seems unlikely given our current level of comments, so I regard initial moderation as a currently necessary but temporary experiment. In my case “moderated’ boils down to “Are you a fuckwit or not?” which is a subjective standard, I admit. But Blogger is free (or at least the front-end is, the back-end is that Google owns you) so if you have a firm opinion of whatever stripe, you can add your voice to the cacophony.

I do wish more people would blog: there are so many sharp and incisive commenters out there that the world could do with hearing more from.

I do hope that potential political bloggers are not being disouraged from using their voices because of what a certain element in center-left (and that only by warped right-wing big media standards) US political bloggers have been up to lately. Using their predominant market power to skew the blogging market by exorcising censorship blogroll amnesty on their blogrolls, they are, in essence, acting as a cartel to knock out potential competitors for future Democratic political funding.

My evidence for this is admittedly circumstantial, but nevertheless compelling.

Post the Edwards blogger brouhaha the Kool Kidz of ‘leet blogging seem to have been conducting something of a purge.

The big US political blogs, the ones that are run as business concerns for their owners – recently described by Max Sawicky as also “a mostly brainless vacuum cleaner of donations for the Democratic Party” – have been divesting themselves of connections with what they apparently consider to be ‘lesser’ bloggers. What ‘lesser’ is in this case is hazily defined: it seems to be a combination of readership level, shade of opinion and the vehemence with which that opinion is expressed. Teh Kool Kidz might protest to the contrary, but the bloggers who have been cut certainly see themselves as being dropped for having inconvenient opinions. (And to some of those jettisoned it actually means a drop in vital ad income.)

Neither site has a blogroll even close to being in the thousands, but thousands of bloggers link TO them. I have seen many of these links from little blogs that for some reason feel compelled to put kos on their blog roll. It does them absolutely no good, but it’s great for kos.

Let’s turn the tables and talk about equality. Suppose YOUR site just happens to have a good post, will it ever see the light of day on kos? Of course not, that is unless you sign on to be a “diarist.” That’s why reciprocity is important. If you list the kos site, even though he won’t list yours, he makes money. And you? You are as much a sucker as someone playing the slots in a casino.

In what was once the blogoshere, there was a certain etiquette, that, although unwritten, revolved around reciprocity. I list your blog, you list mine. In blogdom, that is gone. With little money to go around-and some bloggers, feeling that money even corrupted the process-what made the blogosphere function was an evolving cooperative community. Like all communities it had its quirks and certainly its share of eccentric characters but it also had folks like the Wampum site that publishes the Koufax awards and sites like Crooks and Liars and My Left Wing that saw as part of their mission to encourage new voices and to recognize those of us out on the fringe. Maryscott O’Connor came by her nickname of blog mother, the old-fashioned way-she earned it.

You could ask why the surprise at this: we’ve seen recently that passion and strong feeling is frowned upon in US progressive politics , or should I say Democratic politics. The Edwards blogger situation was a demonstration of that. Campaign consultants for the Democratic Party must’ve been watching the ‘Edwards bloggers’ dog and pony show intently, as a foretaste of how this new campaign/blogging interface would be dealt with by the media at at large – that it was all a bit of a fiasco must’ve set them totally atwitter.

Co-incidentally, right afterwards the self-described ‘big bloggers’ (the ones intent on moving up in the informal Democratic power-broking hierarchy, beginning to consider themselves kingmakers and hoping for a bit of that consultancy dosh) started divesting themselves of inconvenient former connections.

Hmmm. Blogroll purge – presidential candidate/ blogger scandal, campaign war-chests: could they by chance be related? I think we should be told.

But the big bloggers only found themselves in their current positions because of the anticapitalist and antiglobalist left overseas bloggers linking to them and quoting approvingly from their posts and comments – those on the US left who looked outside the country for their news and opinion found that here was someone. actually on their own doorsteps, speaking their language. But there’d been like-minded leftists talking to each other online way before Blogger was invented, on Indymedia, Usenet, IRC and the Well: online political discussion is hardly a new thing and political bloggers were about way before Atrios or Kos typed their first anti-Bush diatribe.

What made them different? Timing and a eye to marketing.

Kos’diary model was timely – it came along just at the right time, when there was a dearth of political space for US liberals against the war to speak their minds and discuss their position. It was a niche market: a discussion forum run by Americans for Americans and in which Europeans and others could actually speak to Americans about politics and it was a safe space when a safe space was badly needed.

The likes of Kos and Atrios and others may see themselves as having been in the blogging vanguard but their success is built on the work of thousands. When or how they began to see blogging as a money-making platform for their own ambitions I couldn’t say for sure, but I suspect around the time the Liberal Ad Network was formed.

Kos’ success in my opinion has been a matter of historical happenstance, (plus hard work – there’s no denying he’s given it that ) plus the fact that when he started there was no US progressive blogosphere to speak of. The market was ripe for the plucking: but had he come along at another time under another president but Bush, it would’ve been a bust.

But most essential of all to Kos’ success has been an educated, eloquent and dogged group of diarists. For many of those diarists it was the first time they realised they could speak out in public and the sky wouldn’t fall; many went on to become bloggers themselves, loyally linking to Kos and back and to their fellow diarists and bloggers. Thus circular linking built a readership, a blogosphere and a sucessful Kos brand.

But Daily Kos isn’t and has never been a democracy, for all its ratings systems: it’s exactly what I said, a brand, and a brand has an image to protect if it wants to attract investment.

Atrios’ rise is slightly differently explained: he became popular initially because of linkage from non-USAnian and expatriate bloggers against the war – it was “Look- here’s an American economist who agrees with us, and he’s funny too”. The fact that he worked for Media Matters for America also gave his opinions added credibility. That he writes with a wry self-deprecation and an eye for the ridiculous and the in-joke made him even more popular – and as with Kos, linkage gave him prominence.

Then the early adopters and those with a little clue amongst the mainstream media started asking “who are these people?” and slowly the bigger blogs started to have some actual influence. But the moment they stepped into fund-raising for the Democrats they stopped being outside critics of the political system and started working within it.

One of the first blogs I ever read, and I’ve been reading and contributing to blogs before they were blogs, was American Samizdat. I always thought samizdat was exactly the right description of political blogging -information and politics that was outside the mainstream channels, uncontrolled and unfiltered by editors or party apparatchiks – people’s actual voices and personal knowledge. Whistleblowing on a grand scale.

The big blogs got where they are on the back for the hard work of those whistleblowers – iIf it weren’t for them, they’d’ve had no content and no links. To have to have bought in what the diarists and commenters brought to the big blogs would’ve cost plenty at investigative journalists’ and pundits’ rates.

But the commenters and diarists did it for nothing, because of their political commitment, and in the process they made Kos and Atrios well-known and influential; so much so they think they deserve a slice of the presidential campaign war-chests.

I’ve seen the phenomenon of the free-marketisation of political blogging described as the natural consequence of a lack of the progressive equivalent of wingnut welfare. I see it as a lack of thought and participative discussion about how an online political community could have actually explored a new model of democratic participation. If there’s that much concern about supporting progressive bloggers financially, all that money raised for unsuccesful candidates could have been put into a progressive blogging foundation, along the lines of the trust that runs a couple of British newspapers, with a membership organisation, a democratically elected board, regular meetings and votes. Grant money could have been applied for on that basis.

But no, the basic premise for the US center-left – and they have the loudest online presence – is and has always been the free market, so that’s how they’re running their blogs.

That’s fine, it’s their blog, we can all get our own. But we can all also choose who we participate with and link to, and those who live by the market die by the market. Death for any blog is no content and no links and this is the hidden power the so-called ‘lesser blogs’ have over the Kool kidz. How much influence would they have then? Would Democratic politiciams still take their phone calls without those comments and links?

To adapt a free-market truism, the Kool Kidz should remember that bloggers can go down as well as up. And isn’t there some saying about being nice to those you meet on the way up, because you can be sure you’ll meet them on the way down?

I don’t care whether we’re linked to by the self-chosen elite big blogs or not, so this can’t be dismissed as sour grapes. Martin may feel differently, but it’s enough for me that a handful of people read this blog – it’s nice to look at stats and have a little internal smugness because the hits are high, but really in the long run it’s irrelevant. Popularity is such a fleeting thing – it’s what you do politically, not what you say, that actually matters.

If only one person were to change their way of thinking or understand the world a little better because of something Martin or I’ve written or done, it’ll do for me.

I could be accused of being a moral prig because we don’t need to make money from Prog Gold and have no plans to do so, and maybe that’s true.

But if we ever were to decide to collude with the political establishment in maintaining the capitalist status quo, personally profiting from doing so whilst simultaneously shitting on the people who made us what we are, you’ld be the first to know.

Comments policy

Unfortunately it seems the switch from Blogger with Haloscan comemnts to WordPress has made us much more visible to comment spammers, which means we have to introduce a comments policy.

Don’t worry, it’s not a very strict policy. It’s just that a) you need to provide a name and e-mail address to comment and b) your first comment will have to be moderated by us. That’s not too difficult I hope.

How to handle journalists

Over at Lawyers, Guns and Money, Robert Farley thinks people are too harsh on journalists in general and Michael Gordon especially:

Here’s what I wish. I wish that the blogosphere could think in less dispositional terms. When Gordon, or anyone else, writes a bad article, we tend to attack them on dispositional terms; Gordon failed because he’s a friend of the administration, an arrogant stenographer, a neocon, etc. We don’t have a vocabulary that, for lack of a better phrase, allows us to hate the sin and love the sinner. I love the blogosphere, but I loathe this aspect of it. A few weeks ago, we all had a terrific rage fest against the hack pundit Joe Klein. Then, Klein started to write things that we liked, and the declarations of hackishness and bad faith went away. I still think that Joe Klein is a hack, but that’s rather beside the point; he’s either a hack or he’s not, and just because he starts directing his hackery in directions we like doesn’t change that fact. Same thing with the various writers for the New Republic, the blogospheric reaction to whom vacillates wildly between “foul servant of Dark Lord Peretz” and “Oh, hey, that’s an interesting point”. To use a nearer and dearer example, only part of what makes me loathe Mickey Kaus is his political position; much more irritating to me is his manifest inability to convey a thought in writing and his trivial approach to political questions.

Robert makes two complaints here: one that Michael Gordon is more than just a voice activated tape recorder as he’s been called by the progressive blogosphere and second, that the general treatment of journalists depends too much on whether the blogosphere agrees with what they’re saying.

To start with Gordon, I’d argue that he actually fits a pattern of journalists who are quite willing to criticise the government’s actions, as long as it’s either long after their criticism could’ve had any impact or in fora which are inaccesible to the hoi polloi. that sort of criticism isn’t helpful and certaintly isn’t damaging to the administration. It’s nice to read that the War on Iraq was doomed to be a failure after it had become a failure, but it would’ve been better if that case had been made before the war.

I do agree with Robert’s more general point, that you should be careful not to judge journalists just for whether they agree with you or not, but also on the quality of their reporting. A hack working for your side is still a hack. At the same time however there is merit in “training” journalists to get better at reporting the truth and not just Republican talking points, by praising them when they do things right and by getting out the sledgehammers when they don’t.

In the current climate, the left needs to be very very blunt and aggressive to even get itself heard through the haze of the wingnut media machine. The recent troubles with Amanda Marcotte are the perfect example. Within days something was ginned up and repeated at louder and louder volumes until she had to resign from the Edwards campaign.

With this sort of thing happening every day being consistently partisan in approaching the news media is not a sin; it’s survival. Which means keep hammering them when they get things wrong, reward them (but not too much) when they get things right and keep exposing hackery.

Malice, Spite and An Eye To The Bottom Line

UPDATE:

Shortly after I posted this Edwards released a statement:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

Mealy-mouthed, but Malkin loses as it seems they’re not fired after all – advantage liberal blogospshere. And my comments below still stand – the right set the agenda again, and the Democrats were caught on the back foot, again.

— ———————————————————————

Leaving aside the fact I consider Amanda Marcotte a friend (though I disagree with her on many things) the vicious public attack on the Edwards bloggers, led by rightwing media-slime Michelle Malkin, is interesting both as an object lesson for political campaigns on how not to handle bloggers and as an insight into the pathology of right wing female pundits.

This story has been all about how personal spite, a minor media figure’s fading popularity and a last desperate attempt by Malkin to get hers before it all goes to shit for the Republicans have co-incided, to produce the early derailing of the Edwards campaign amongst its own supporters.

It couldn’t’ve worked better had it been planned.

First a little backstory. It seems Ms. Michelle “I resent women unless they’re me” Malkin is not unaquainted with the indignity of being let go herself.

A Virginia newspaper recently got rid of her from its pages because she has, according the paper’s ombudsman“…a long history of poorly supported polemic” and because of her propensity to spout rubbish “…regardless of its factual basis or lack thereof”. Nicely and politely put, but the meaning’s clear. Malkin is a proven liar and bigot and was fired for it, simple as that. The difference between her firing and that of the Edwards bloggers is that Malkin got the boot for barefaced, easily debunked lying and no hysterical whipping-up of bloggers by liberals was required whatsoever. It was all her own work.

Malkin’s words spoke for themselves, and they screamed “Liar!”

Wherever did this harpy come from and how did she get to be so prominent? David Neiwert of Orcinus knew Malkin professionally in her early career; she left Seattle under a cloud after issues with her reporting. Her trademark viciousness was apparent even then. This is her parting shot to the city:

The Cattle In Seattle: You Guys Had It Coming

Michelle Malkin

Creators Syndicate Inc.

WASHINGTON – As I watched fire, tear gas and mass chaos consume Seattle last week, one wicked little thought crossed my mind: It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving city.

Nice.

Read More

Sucky Sucky

What a catty little bitch of a genocidal wingnut welfare queen Michelle Malkin is. I wouldn’t normally take any notice of her, being as she is on the lunatic fringe of wingnuttia, except that she’s gratuitously attacked Amanda Marcotte.

Her nasty little video hit-piece is typical Malkin high-school bullying nastiness at it’s most infantile and childish. It sucks ass as a video too.

I wasn’t madly keen on Amanda working for Edwards, and said so at the time, and I also pointed out that when you join the political establishment you take what you get.

But this isn’t political – oh no, this is personal.

Envious much, Michelle? No Republican presidential candidate asked you to be their pet blogger? Ohhh, poor darling, you’ve tried everything including making your ‘O’ face on national TV, and still they don’t want you. What’s it going to take, pulling a train with the uncloseted members of the RNC?

And don’t anyone give me that reasonable, liberal ‘we’re all sisters under the skin’ crap. Fuck sisterhood. It doesn’t count for genocidal rightwing harpies.

If Malkin thinks the entire liberal blogosphere is just going to sit back and see one of its own abused in this way by such an unworthy heifer of wingnut-paid pundit she can think again, if her pretty little ventriloquist’s dummy airhead is capable of that without Jesse’s hand up her back.

Jesse's girl

If Ms. Malkin thinks liberal women are uncivil… oy, we haven’t even started yet. Ad feminam? You betcha.

Malkin the alleged ‘journalist’ may be on tv and may well be making a nice living but let’s face it, tv quality has declined markedly in recent years and she’s on Fox, which says it all. It barely qualifies for the name ‘news’. Any reasonably pretty woman (non-white for preference, that way they can point to their token ethnic to deny accusations of racism) who can rant rightwing talking points to camera will do for Fox. What else would explain the appearance of this ranting harpy on our screens?

Michelle Malkin is a no-talent, ethically-challenged, liar and Auntie Thomasina of an anchor baby who can’t write and who trades on her looks and the sexual fantasies of her wingnut admirers to make money from the rightwing crap her bad-tempered and reportedly violent husband can’t get published unless it has a exotic Asian babe fronting it. Eliminationist poison sounds so much nicer when there’a purty lil’ mouth spewing it.

But that’s right-wing women all over: small minded, petty jealous cows who’d tread on anyone in their discounted-wholesale Jimmy Choo knockoffs if they thought it’d get them more attention from the guys and/or push their ‘careers’. (And there was I thinking they should be at home ministering to their husbands needs and popping out sprogs by the dozen, like they want the rest of us to. Silly me.)

I predict Ms. Malkin, wannabe Bitch-Queen of All Wingnuttia, is going to wish she hadn’t made that video very soon. A lot of people like Amanda, but many more most assuredly loathe Michelle.

Pass the popcorn.