Readers know by now that I’m a blogger’s blogger, a staunch advocate of the new medium (and marketing tool). We’ve witnessed the power of a blog swarm and the reluctance of leftist media to report objectively about scandals involving Democrats.
It was the blogosphere that forced Sen. Richard Durbin to apologize for comparing American interrogators to Nazis and Soviets, not Democrats or the media.
It’s now common knowledge that mainstream media tend to downplay Democrats’ shenanigans and overplay whatever bone-headed thing Republicans may say or do. Sometimes the bias is blatant, other times subtle. You might not be able to pinpoint it exactly, but as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote about obscenity in a landmark case: “[I] know it when I see it.”
The publisher of a small newspaper called the Carolina Journal wrote an editorial that gets to the heart of the issue. Regular people (distinct from journalists) were appalled by Dick Durbin’s remarks:
No major television network news show reported his initial remarks. No national newspaper saw them as newsworthy. So, where did this outrage come from, given that the media ignored his remarks? How did millions of Americans come to know Durbin as “Turban Durbin†if the mainstream media looked the other way? You’re looking at it right now: the Internet. [Read: blogosphere]Durbin was quaking and begging in the Senate Tuesday because of the tsunami of outrage from everyday people. Many of those, presumably, were his constituents. No senator does what he did yesterday without great pressure. He must have seen his political career teetering on the abyss. He was in danger of being remembered as the Democrat who thought American servicemen and women were monsters equal to Hitler’s SS or Stalin’s NKVD. He may still be so remembered, for even with the tears and the choking sobs he never actually took back what he said.
The Durbin affair is yet another example of how the times they are a-changin’ for the mainstream media. Dan Rather and the Swift Vets are others that come to mind. The MSM are no longer gatekeepers or agenda setters. Their attempts to blackout a story that doesn’t fit their template or rise to their level of interest no longer work. Increasingly, the American public is learning that it can go around the ossified hulk of the MSM to get to lively, often better informed, news and commentary. (Emphasis added)
Good op-ed. The only complaint I have is that most journalists, liberal or conservative, aren’t specific enough when they write about the influence of the “Internet.” It’s blogs specifically, not static web sites, that generate buzz.
Note: Message to readers with low IQs trying to comment on this post - Being a “blogger’s blogger” doesn’t mean I support whatever they do, like libel, cyber-stalking, lying, and filth, and that doesn’t make me a hypocrite. That I have to explain this makes me more sad than angry.
The govenment school system has done a tragically poor job educating citizens. Pitiful.
Update: More on slander and the Durbin Effect.
I suppose it’s all about perception. In clicking through the three major 24-hour news channels in the past week, I saw them all giving it to Durbin pretty good.
On the other hand, networks are now FINALLY coming around and talking about the Downing Street Memos. If anything, I believe the media are very contrarian. Bush is in office, so of course they’re gonna go after him.
The media did a bang-up job on Clinton, if you’ll remember. So, while a majority of journalist may be self-identified as liberals, I think the real aim of news organizations today is to simply go after whoever’s in power. Clinton got some good beatdowns in the 90s and now Bush is getting the same treatment.
Comment by Mike M. — 06.23.05 @ 8:41 am
“He was in danger of being remembered as the Democrat who thought American servicemen and women were monsters equal to Hitler’s SS or Stalin’s NKVD.”
maybe we do need education reform.
Comment by actus — 06.23.05 @ 8:46 am
La Shawn:
Ditto that the “alternate media” brought Durbin to the attention of the mainstram media.
Even NPR couldn’t ignore him.
But wait - John McCain believes we are being too hard on Durbin - just like he said with Kerry and the Swiftvets. And this dame McCain wants to regulate political speech on the Internet. And he believes in golbal warming. Would be a great running mate for Hillary. Don’t count this out.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 06.23.05 @ 9:25 am
La Shawn:
Ditto that the “alternate media” brought Durbin to the attention of the mainstram media.
Even NPR couldn’t ignore him.
But wait - John McCain believes we are being too hard on Durbin - just like he said with Kerry and the Swiftvets. And this dame McCain wants to regulate political speech on the Internet. And he believes in golbal warming. Would be a great running mate for Hillary. Don’t count this out.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 06.23.05 @ 9:25 am
LaShawn,
Did not Dirty Dick Durbin blame right-wing bloggers for unwanted attention? I think some of our friends are in their category. BTW Laurence (Larry) A. Elder (Brown 1974) shows in townhall.com that Raines of NY Times that said Kerry had higher IQ than GW Bush. GW Bush and Kerry are both Yalies and Larry and I (I older)
only from Brown.
James M. Barber
Comment by James M. Barber — 06.23.05 @ 10:13 am
“And he believes in golbal warming.”
This one is great. Start by reading realclimate.org response to the wall street journal:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=167
Comment by actus — 06.23.05 @ 10:26 am
Dick Durbin’s apology, such as it was, appeared, at least in time, to have motivated by disparageing comments by Chicago mayor Richard Daley. That to say, it was only rumbling in Durbin’s base and not an eruption on the blogosphere that motived Durbin’s apology.
Burbin knows all all he has to do is to keep his moonbats in Illiinios happy. Everything else, including the blogosphere, is trivial to Durbin.
Comment by David L — 06.23.05 @ 10:26 am
Now if only the blogosphere could affect what really needs to happen to “Benedict Durbin”; 25 to life for aiding and abetting the enemy with anti-American rhetoric from the Senate floor during wartime. I will advocate to my senator (McCain), Durbin the America hater needs to do time.
Comment by Dave in AZ — 06.23.05 @ 10:27 am
Well Dave, we just need to keep the heat on idots like Durbin, and see about making sure his district knows all about his statements when the next vote for his seat comes up.
More and more, the congresscritter in Washington can see the writing on the wall: the gig is up, and big media no longer controls what gets reported to the masses. Kissing up to the newsires or networks will no longer keep your gaffes out of the public dialogue.
Beware the pajama people… they’re everywhere.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.23.05 @ 10:45 am
LaShawn,
I totally agree. Now’s here something we can try out the power of the Blogos on that is in the best interest of all of us. See this comment in a thread over at Winds of Change:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007039.php#c40
Ron
Comment by Ron Wright — 06.23.05 @ 10:54 am
“Now if only the blogosphere could affect what really needs to happen to “Benedict Durbinâ€; 25 to life for aiding and abetting the enemy with anti-American rhetoric from the Senate floor during wartime.”
That would probably be unconstitutional. Article I, section 6 gives the speech and debate clause.
Comment by actus — 06.23.05 @ 11:01 am
La Shawn wrote, ““[I] know it when I see it.—
Yep.
Comment by Baklava — 06.23.05 @ 11:20 am
Yeah, the MSM loves bloggers. You can tell now as NPR and the networks mention ‘conservative/rightwing bloggers’ every chance they get, such as to explain why Turban Durbin was forced to apologize w/o even going into what exactly he said.
They also blamed these bloggers for Klein’s book shooting to # 1, as did ABC on Nightline, last night. Nevermind that most of the leading conservatives slammed Klein for his salacious hearsay tripe.
Look for these bloggers to get the ‘blame’ whenever things don’t pan out the MSM/DNC way.
Comment by Andy — 06.23.05 @ 11:27 am
La Shawn: Since when did Durbin apologize??? I haven’t heard anything close to an apology for what he said.
Comment by Dignan — 06.23.05 @ 11:27 am
Mike M. wrote, “The media did a bang-up job on Clinton”.
I disagree. Their incessant commentary on the subject never focused on perjury but that “everybody does it”, “his private life blah blah blah”, “it was consensual” [never mind the fact that she was a subordinate which makes that harrassment by definition].
And my point throughout ALL of the Clinton years was NOT the proceedings that were playing themselves out in court and the trial.
MY POINT all along [not that anyone asked :)] was that almost every other sentence Bill Clinton LIED and the media never corrected, challenged or even offered that their might be another point of view. 5 months straight in 1995 he accused the Republicans of wanting to cut Medicare 270 billion. The lapdog media didn’t give it to him Mike. They simply reported that the Republicans wanted to cut Medicare by 270 billion dollars. Republican after Republican tried to correct the record and even one on one during one on one interviews with the likes of Dan Rather. Dan Rather could not bring himself to understand that it was an increase of dollars 7% per year for 7 years. Dan argued Bill Clinton’s argument.
I never saw one major national news “do a bang up job on Clinton” Mike. They poo pooed, minimized and essentially helped polarize this country by picking sides for Bill Clinton.
Comment by Baklava — 06.23.05 @ 11:27 am
actus,
I suppose this only applies to Liberals. When a
Republican (or conservative Christian) speaks out on issues that he or she doesn’t like, he or she is labelled racist, homophobic, intolerant. Put whatever label you want there.
It’s funny how it’s ok when a DIMocrat says something, but it’s a “HOW DARE YOU!?” Moment when a Conservative speaks their mind.
Hmm…Can we say “Hypocrite”? I thought we could.
Dan
Comment by Dan — 06.23.05 @ 11:28 am
John McCain, although he loves to be described as a maverick, is a loyal member of the Senatorial Club. Apparently, he thinks that the votes of the other 99 senators can get him elected President.
Daley, whose son is in the military, was probably the major reason for Durbin to “apologize” but Durbin’s staff was well aware of the volcano erupting in the blogosphere over his inane comparisons.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 06.23.05 @ 11:28 am
DURBIN WATCH: AUTOPSY REPORTS
The Chicago Tribune’s Jill Zuckman pokes at the entrails. Hugh Hewitt analyzes The Durbin Effect: The willingness to slander the servicemen and women responsible for the custody and interrogation of the detainees at Gitmo and around the globe did not…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 06.23.05 @ 11:34 am
Baklava: The MSM was certainly out of touch on the clinton thing. They kept talking about it when the people didn’t really care for it anymore. Just the washington chattering classes, and some partisans.
Dan: What are you talking about? the speech and debate clause? That’s more got to do with criminal issues that whether you or I say “how dare he!”
Comment by actus — 06.23.05 @ 11:39 am
Andy - I find that strange as well. The Hillary book was written by a liberal about liberals, yet conservatives are being blamed for it.
I don’t like unauthorized biographies or tell-alls about what happened between couples in their bedrooms, and I hope conservatives aren’t promoting that mess.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.23.05 @ 11:43 am
Not me.
Comment by Baklava — 06.23.05 @ 12:12 pm
Great low IQ retort. I am sooo tempted to go there, a lot, but I manage - with great effort - not to. I guess that’s why I blog about mundane things. I don’t know if folks, especially loved ones, are ready for me to REALLY say what I’m thinking, hold the sugar, and I don’t want to bust a blood vessel trying to contain myself, LoL. So, I avoid anything that would rile me up. But, I think it’s time for a change.
Comment by Rosalind — 06.23.05 @ 1:11 pm
Time for a change!
Comment by Baklava — 06.23.05 @ 1:16 pm
There is a poll on Al Jazeera’s web site concerning Condaleeza Rice. Let’s skew their results. VOTE!
Results as of now are:
Promote democratic reforms :
16% - WHAT I VOTED
Distract attention from Iraq :
47%
Push forward Israel’s planned pullout from Gaza :
7%
All of the above :
17%
None of the above :
13%
By the way. Concerning Durbin… Here’s what Al Jazeera has to say today…
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D9197A74-6921-428A-ABA8-83517D458536.htm
The article has this paragraph:
The comments created a buzz on the internet and among conservative talk radio hosts, but Durbin initially refused to apologise.
Comment by Baklava — 06.23.05 @ 3:18 pm
That above referenced poll is at
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
Comment by Baklava — 06.23.05 @ 3:19 pm
I expect democrats to slander the military - they have never forgiven them for winning the Cold War. The real harm in Durban’s comment was in trivializing genuine holocausts.
Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 06.23.05 @ 4:02 pm
The Carolina Journal item is good, in a general sort of way, but it doesn’t really give any strong rationale for the assertion that it was blog pressure that caused Durban’s pseudo change of heart. My own guess is that it was Daly. While he’s not the force of nature his father was, until he’s challenged he still controls the Illinois Democratic party machine, and that means he controls Durban’s career.
How we might resolve these two claims, I don’t know - was it the blogs, or was it Daly? No useful metric comes to mind. But as things stand I find it noteworthy that Durban is a foe of his fellow Americans (as in, “providing aid and comfort to the enemy”), but Daly is not.
Comment by big dirigible — 06.23.05 @ 4:54 pm
Senator Hagel this past week said that we are losing the war in Iraq. When AL-Jazeerah runs this on their network and declares that a REPUBLICAN US SENATOR is claiming that America is losing the war in Iraq, it will not only only bolster Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts, but it will also demoralize our troops and further imperil them by encouraging our enemies. Ironically, Chuck Hagel has desires to be the president of this nation. Will America vote for a traitor for President? I hope not. This is much more demoralizing than anything Dick Durbin said. Where is the Republican party’s outrage? Where is Karl Rove’s outrage?
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=41358&version=1&templa te_id=57&parent_id=56
Comment by Gretchen Heitz — 06.23.05 @ 7:09 pm
I hope Karl Rove responds well to this
FAMILIES OF 9-11 in official press release
As families whose relatives were victims of the 9/11 terror attacks, we believe it is an outrage that any Democrat, any Republican, any conservative or any liberal, stakes a “high ground†position based upon the September 11th death and destruction. Doing so assumes that all those who died and their loved ones would agree. In truth, some would and some would not. By definition the conduct is divisive and, because it is intended to be self-serving and politicizes 9/11, it is offensive.
We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others. His comments are not welcome.
Comment by Gretchen Heitz — 06.23.05 @ 7:29 pm
Quit whining. Karl Rove was 100% accurate in his assertions and you know it.
Take THAT DICK Durbin!
Comment by Raymond — 06.23.05 @ 7:51 pm
please don’t insult the families who lost their loved ones on 9-11. I am a conservative, but I do not stand by him on this. I want them to focus on Al Qaeda and finishing the job off in Iraq, rather than focusing exclusively on destroying the democratic party. In Germany, the downfall of the Hitler was that he cared more about destroying political opposition, rather than taking care of the country’s security needs. Besides, my father was a Vietnam War Veteran, and I’m not particularly a fan of individuals who say there are some people who are not willing to fight the war on Terror, when during his time, Communism was the biggest threat to humanity, but Rove got a deferrment and initally attempted to spread Conservatism by political pranks, not political philosophy.
Comment by Gretchen Heitz — 06.23.05 @ 8:40 pm
I don’t care about the families of 9/11 anymore. They lost ALL rights to my sympathy when THEY TOOK MONEY!! My money! As if they are the only ones who ever suffered tragedy in their lives.
Does that mean the rest of us deserved to get “pimped” just because they suffered loss?
Are the deaths of their loved ones any less tragic than the husband truck driver who dies in a freak traffic accident on his way home from work caused by the government’s not fixing a pothole or not putting up a deer proof fence?
When these GREEDY family members took money out of my pocket in a shakedown to “ease” their grief and then kept showing up on television show after televison show bashing our President and trying to blame him and not the REAL perp Bill Clinton, I shifted them into the welfare sucker category just like any other no good person who thinks they deserve something for nothing.
Comment by Raymond — 06.23.05 @ 8:51 pm
The insult to the victims of 9/11 and their families came from the left, with their disgraceful behavior of blaming the U.S. for the attacks, talking about “understanding” the sub-human terrorists who did the deed, and even some scum cheering the attacks.
After Pearl Harbor the nation was unified against those who committed the atrocity. After 9/11, the nation was divided into those who recognized evil and sought to fight it, and those leftists who wanted to defend evil, or at the very best wanted to ignore it and blame their own country first. How far we have fallen in half a century.
I find nothing incorrect in what Mr. Rove said, and it needed to be said.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.23.05 @ 9:06 pm
Hold on, I supported the war in Afghanistan, and so did all Democrats. I supported the Iraq War thinking it was a part of the War on Terror, but it clearly is not, and it was not handled well. I look to prominent Republicans like McCain, Lugar, and Hagel (although he shouldn’t have said we are losing). The bottom line is, the families of 9-11 are a non partisan group, and they don’t like that their deaths to be turned into a political issue. Lets face it, Karl Rove is not hte most masculine guys out there. He just adds to liberal talking points about attempting to talk tough, but when it comes to his real life, he dodged every one of his civic responsibilities (his duty to defeat Communism in Vietnam) We need to tone down this “we are losing rhetoric,” and Liberals are traitors because its not helping us in the Polls. Bush’s approval ratings are going down, and it’s because people are beginning to equate us as a party that is obsessed with a problem that doesn’t even exist: flag burning at gay weddings.
Comment by Gretchen Heitz — 06.23.05 @ 9:26 pm
Listening to the weepy Durbin and Voinovich doesn’t give me much confidence in these elected “leaders”.As doctor Phil would say,”you need to get out of your doublewides take a walk in your backyard and smell the skunkcabbage.”
Comment by ratso ferrari — 06.23.05 @ 9:37 pm
“Quit whining. Karl Rove was 100% accurate in his assertions and you know it.”
heh. That is the way to address the people who fail to step in line. 9/11 families or not.
Comment by actus — 06.23.05 @ 10:16 pm
Yes, it is.
Comment by Raymond — 06.23.05 @ 10:17 pm
“It was the blogosphere that forced Sen. Richard Durbin to apologize…”
I disagree. I live in Chicago and the mayor is very powerful. Even his enemies tend to succumb to him because he’s a strong politician and deal-maker. He publically said he wasn’t happy with Durbin’s comments, and then Durbin apologized.
But who cares if he apologized? It’s just for show and to be united with Da Mayor and the party. Durbin has consistently demonstrated his lack of solid values.
Comment by mj — 06.23.05 @ 10:42 pm
Y’all might be missing a tie-in here, vis a vis the Daly/Durbin scenario. Granted, blogosphere pressure was there, and rising. Durbin may or may not have succumbed to it, eventually (or maybe he did, I don’t know). But he did apologize (sorta, kinda) after Daly let it be known he was not happy. Does this timeline mean anything? Maybe.
Perhaps Daly only spoke out when HE became aware of the rising storm.
Leaving us with blogosphere -> Daly -> Durbin, rather than blogosphere -> Durbin.
Comment by Greg — 06.24.05 @ 12:41 am
Daley was responding to the media frenzy and his advisors/media relations people. He’s even done that over snow.
Comment by mj — 06.24.05 @ 7:18 am
I also think that someone tipped Durbin to the polls that came out this week, that most American’s think Gitmo should stay open, and that the reports of torture are BS. When the public and the state part machine are against him, he as to make a choice. He went with weasel non-apology with a dash of panty waist crying for good measure.
Anybody else think his next campaign might look a little like Daschle v Thune?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.24.05 @ 7:42 am
He’ll win in Illinois–people like him here (except for Republicans, which are not numerous).
Comment by mj — 06.24.05 @ 2:01 pm
“Anybody else think his next campaign might look a little like Daschle v Thune?”
Ooh. is jeff gannon gonna work on it?
Comment by actus — 06.25.05 @ 2:38 am
Go ahead, Actus, divert and distract and misdirect. Jeff Gannon wasn’t on the ballot.
The fact is that Daschle lost because people in his state were fed up with his negativism, his obstructionism, and his small-minded partisanship.
The same is possible in Illinois with Durbin the Turban, if enough folks are sick of his disgusting slander. It’s not likely, given the dirty ward politics in Chicago and the mindless nature of Chicago’s Yellow Dog Democrats, but it’s possible. I’ll send a few bucks to his opponent, whoever it is.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.25.05 @ 7:35 am
“Go ahead, Actus, divert and distract and misdirect. Jeff Gannon wasn’t on the ballot. ”
Of course not. but he worked on the campaign.
Comment by actus — 06.25.05 @ 9:50 am
So…Now its ok to extract an apology? I thought last week apologies were a waste of time and tax payers money and resources of the legislature? Have we now found good use for apologies? Just a question…
Comment by JB — 06.25.05 @ 2:45 pm
Apologize for something he did during a time of war JB? Sure we want it.
Robert Byrd (and his fellow Senators) apologizing for something thier party did (yet not mentioning that their party did it - filibustering anti-lynching laws), but the point is it wasn’t the people who did filibuster apologizing, it was people apologizing many decades later and yet failing to really say who was responsible for the action….
What were people on this thread saying JB? We were saying it was a waste of time and taxpayer dollars to DRAFT A RESOLUTION APOLOGIZING. Durbin should apologize (he still hasn’t) for putting more of our military men in harms way and aiding the enemy and lying and it doesn’t require DRAFTING A RESOLUTION (wasting taxpayer dollars). It simply requires him to get in front of the camera and let the enemy know that in no uncertain terms was he shouldn’t have used the analogy he used. He was wrong.
Comment by Baklava — 06.26.05 @ 10:27 pm
“It simply requires him to get in front of the camera and let the enemy know that in no uncertain terms was he shouldn’t have used the analogy he used.”
What TV stations should play it? like, which ones does the enemy watch?
Comment by actus — 06.27.05 @ 8:32 am