Meet The Blogs

Heh. Lord knows I’ve written on blogging often enough. And no one really understands its impact yet. So there’s no way in h*ll I’m going to offer any criticism of Adams’ story. It’s as fair an assessment as any I’ve seen.

Okay, touchstone, you're the writer ... quit being a wuss.

Apparently my face is gracing the cover of the Independent. So, um, yeah, I’m sorry.

Yeah, boyish good looks really suck, Matt.

Over all, it is a fair coverage, complete with images and descriptions of your favorite and least favorite bloggers.

Come on, Shane, we can do better than that ...

All of these guys are referring to the featured article appearing today in the Missoula Independent.  The article is titled "Meet the Bloggers", and it just so happens that, yes, many of our mugs do grace the cover of the issue.  (Reminiscent of the game 'one of these things is not like the others', there is a craggy visage surrounded by youthful charm.  I've always said that I have a voice for radio and a face for blogging ... now you know.)  It's surprising to me that the blogish reaction to the article so far has been one of self-depreciation.  I've no difficulty scoring points in that game, but I think we'd be remiss as bloggers if we don't examine things just a little deeper, yes?

When Craig posted about this coming article, I posited that talking to the author, John Adams, was like talking to Karl Kolchak (the NightStalker), willing to enter any seedy otherworldy den of evil for his story.  Indeed, I think he has, but he doesn't really grasp where he's been. 

John says:

So, all of that said, I’ll be curious to read your insightful analysis of my piece…or, I guess I’ll have to take my bitter medicine in the blogosphere. .

I feel that others are very happy with the coverage and notoriety, as am I, but a critique is not only inevitable, but demanded.  Allow me to offer one.

As a general impression, I don't think the article focused as much on the bloggers as it did the blogging.  One of the failings of the inter-tubes is that  many fail to recognize that their are people behind every word written that appears on the screen.  It was my hope that the article would focus more on those than on what we write.  In the case of Matt Singer, I think the focus was well directed, but for the rest of us ... not so much.  We appear almost as if we are our blogs.

That may not seem like a failing except for this:  People have history, and blogs don't seem to ... yet they do.  Much of John's research appears to be recent in nature.  Those who are attempting to examine loggers through the filter of "what have you written for me lately" aren't examining anybody at all.  They are taking a slice of time and presenting as fact what they find there.  That works terrific for audits but not so much for a dialog such as you find in  on line communication.  Blogs are organic, and not open to much accountancy.  Perhaps the perfect example would be Michelle, formerly proprietor of the website "A Small Victory".  The website went from being a pop-culture iconograph to being a pro-war site, to being a (soon non-existent) refutation of exposure.  Those, like myself, who watched Michelle's efforts saw the change, the progression.  Slice in time reporting fails to capture the person, and ultimately the blog.

The only blogger examined through history in this article was Matt.  I certainly don't call that a failure, but I would call it a bias.  Not a political one, mind you, but a bias towards impact of the story.  Matt has a history that involves blogging, and that was exposed to a degree.    The article would have been richer if the same care had been taken with others.

There are other biases rife throughout the article.  The first and foremost being that those who support Democrats are liberal.  In Montana, at least, this isn't true.

For their part, Montana’s bloggers believe Tester is in a position to become the next poster boy of their liberal Internet activism.

Uhhmmmm, no.  Some Montana bloggers just believe that Tester is the right man for the job.  There is no political ideology involved in that, and it's certainly not driven by 'liberal' leanings.  Many of us just believe that Conrad is corrupt and bad for the state.  Calling what we do "liberal Internet activism" is buying into a biased stereotype and undeserved.  It seems obvious that John wanted to support the rifts that divide the nation right now with such verbiage, but that's not actually factual to what he is reporting.

Let me be plain:  I think this article was objective, but not fair.  (It was very well written, and I offer my thanks to John for that.)  Much of the angry banter that takes place in the Montana blogoworld concerns the objectivity of the press.  Face it, folks, the press will be objective to the point that they get a story.  That's not a liberal bias, or otherwise.  It's a bias towards the juicy tidbits that people wish to read.  Is John "Guilty" of such a thing?  Of course.  Only an idiot wouldn't think so.  (Hi, Eric.)  But that doesn't mean he wasn't objective.  The filters that the story uses are based on "common sense", that those of the left are liberal (as if that means anything anymore) and those on the right are conservative.  These are easily viewed biases from the outside, and make very good copy, but whether they have anything to do with facts is always open to question.  John was very objective, sometimes far too much so in removing himself from the presentation.  But that doesn't mean that what he presented was 'true'.

The bloggers themselves downplay their importance to Montana politics. They might just be modest, or they might not realize how far their voices travel.

Most bloggers, including myself, have been self-depreciating.  I'd say that's a "duh now" kinda thing.

Then again they might just be keeping their heads low for more calculated reasons.

Here we go.  Objectivity with absolutely no reason behind that.  What is the evidence of our calculating nature?  None.  Notta.  Zip.  Except that Chucky Denowh wants to tie Tester to liberal bloggers.  Since when did Montana bloggers become afraid of Chuck?  Uh, Never?

“Leftist blogaholics have been working overtime to fund Jon Tester’s Senate Campaign…These liberal sites see Montana as little more than an opportunity to pick up another Senate seat for New York and California,” Denowh writes.

John missed a grand opportunity here.  He wasn't writing about liberal bloggers and he didn't interview the dark lord, Markos.  Did any of you who talked to him (except Eric, the idiot) offer anything that suggests we want Montana to become more like New York or LA?  No!  And he didn't delve into that, did he?

Montana bloggers are Montanans, and we're not really willing to take a bunch of crap from those who think they pull our strings.  Not New Yorkers, and not little Chucky Denowh.  That might have been kind of a nice angle for John to explore, don't you think?  That Montanans might actually be supportive of our state over all the other crap that comes our way?  We're not Markos.  We're not Atrios.  We're a bunch of folks who want to do right, in the Montana way.  Yes, John was objective, but he lost sight of who he was dealing with.  We are Montanans first, and beyond that ...  Our agenda is one of belief, not of covert machinations.  That might have been the better focus for the story.  Just sayin'

I would be remiss in critiquing this article if I didn't point out the factual inaccuracies.  So, allow me to do so now:

Rob Kailey is quite possibly the most rabidly partisan liberal blogger in the state.

I've said this about a million times and proven it every single time.  I am not a partisan liberal.  I am a bigot.  I am bigoted against stupidity, period.  I don't willfully attack conservatives or Republicants; I just have no tolerance for stupidity.  If John had researched beyond the last two weeks, he might have encountered that thought.

Coobs carries the torch as the lone ultra-conservative voice in the Montana blogosphere, and he does it with a passion that’s admirable.

A) It's not admirable, it's pathetic.

B)  He's not alone.  Craig is an ultra-conservative who John interviewed but failed to mention.  Unlike Eric, Craig really is conservative, ultra even, and Craig has admirable thoughts.  So much so that he is one of the men who inspired me o start blogging.  Eric isn't ultra-conservative.  He's a mouthpiece.

C)  The phrase "What's White in Montana" was coined by my sister in law, and when I use it, there is no "half-joking" at all.  Eric has commentors from Stormfront dot org.  If one builds a roach motel, one shouldn't disavow the denizens who move in.

If you judge a blog’s success by the number of comments it receives, then the controversy has been good for WRIM. It gets more comments, anonymous and otherwise, than any other Montana blog.

Not true.  The most popular website in Montana (on that standard) isn't a political website at all.  It is Os basso's "Views from the back row".  Nicked folk trump politics every time.

Seriously, John Adams wrote a good article.  I'm not at all fond of his characterization of me or my website (he has no sense of history) but I do appreciate his efforts.  He wrote what he encountered.  That would be objective, if not factual.  The readers should make up their own minds.

Speaking strictly personally:

His quasi-satirical tone is unmistakable, but often comes across as the shrill ravings of a liberal madman.

Dude, my tone is totally satirical. You only aid the pathetic when you call it shrill ravings.  {Insult stricken}  I've posted well more than what you've presented here.  I've posted much more than just foul rants, so learn a little bit about blog history, or give up up your effort to define us.  Seriously.

Update:  First, I've struck an insult I wrote to John Adams.  He didn't deserve it and I am sorry for writing it.  I would call it being severely irritated, but I'm sure he would call it "anger getting the best of me".  Keep this in mind, one of my guiding dictums to life under the incompetent Bush administration is this:  If you aren't pissed off, then you're not paying attention.  Though I am obviously the uber-partisan around these web parts, it should be noted how many Montana Republicans agree with that sentiment ... completely.  So I tend to assume that those who aren't pissed off are afraid or ignorant.  That's not necessarily true and I shouldn't do that.  That is my bad.

Second, I didn't write nearly as much as I wished to for this post.  I type slow, and many of you know what this week has been about for me.  Let me clarify a few things for John:  a)  As time goes on, you will notice this, that your premise for the article fails in that What's White in Montana has had, is having and will have absolutely no effect on the current Senate race, except in Eric's mind.  This is where history matters.  He started the website earlier this year as a forum to discuss how awesome Conrad is for Montana, and yet you can count the number of posts they've made about Conrad on one hand.  They are not interested in defending Conrad, either on the front, or in comments.  You might have mentioned that.  b)  If you really wanted to see the Montana blog-o-world in action, politically, you should have inquired  concerning "Dirt Between Lightbulbs".  c) It does seem that you asked others about your subjects as opposed to asking your subjects about themselves.  That's a good way to be "objective", but not a good way to find facts.  Trust me, not as a blogger but as a credentialed philosopher, objectivity is not all it's cracked up to be.

Third, now that Eric has posted his impressions of the article, it is obvious where the idea that I am the most "rabidly partisan" blogger came from.  Yeah, if I want to know about somebody, I always ask their enemies to provide the truth. Heh.  It still strikes me as funny that the What's White In Montana crowd consider me their most dangerous boogie-man.  I'm thinking at this point, that Eric just holds a grudge for getting his ass kicked good.

Oh, and Eric?

Bite me.

Comments

[Cece]

Anyone else find if vaguly wierd that not a single woman blogger was covered? And that only one blogger not at the party was covered, ie. Eric Cobbs. Or is that just me?

Eh. It was what it was, I for one enjoyed it.

[Eric Coobs]

Rob, thanks for the blurbs, but be careful, your envy is showing again!

[Dave Budge]

I thought it was strange that he didn't mention Craig at all. But I think he was trying to tie the whole thing together with the Senate race. Those who have stayed out of that weren't part of the discussion. Too bad really.

[Shane Mason]

And that only one blogger not at the party was covered, ie. Eric Cobbs. Or is that just me?

Yeah, he did the right a disservice there. He should have dropped the troll and put Carig in the story.

Wulfgar,

First, thank you for this writeup. As always it is well done and provides a great insight.

I have to take issue with something here. You seem to meander around the idea that 'liberal is bad, please don't call us that'

Calling what we do "liberal Internet activism" is buying into a biased stereotype and undeserved

I think that by denying the word 'liberal' you are buying into the demonization of this word by the right over the last couple of years. Demonize the words, then associate the opponent with the demonized is a ploy they have done over and over. They use association. Cut and run liberal. Tax and spend liberal

I am not going to insult you by pasting the real definition of liberal. We know that it is about having a broad mind, favoring reform and prograssive stances, caring for others, seeing nuances etc etc. I am proud to be a liberal and I am proud that you are a liberal too.

I am sure that you have good reasons for not wanting to be a partisan liberal, and they may have nothing to do with what I have said here. However, I for one and sick and tired of the right stealing our language.

[Shane Mason]

OK, the italics got a little away from me, insert whatever emphasis you like. :)

[Craig]

Thanks for the props, Rob. I do appreciate it. I still think there are people who are amazed that you and I can be in the same room and not try to knock each other's teeth out.

At any rate, the story, as I read it was about D's vs. R's, and many of us small "c" conservatives and small "l" libertarians didn't self-identify as R's. Therefore, we ended up on the cutting room floor.

Shrill, raving liberal. Hoo boy! :D

[Cece]

Fair enough . . .just wait for the ROAR!
;) cece

[Colby N.]

The italics have run mad!

I found the article interesting because it attempted to say so much about something so simple. As I read it, it seemed like the point was that the selected people were so great and newsworthy because they read, pay attention to their elected officials, and say something about it. In a perfect world (or just a better one) all of those things would be normal, not impressive.

another thing...

I have to ask where the author got the "political bent" section of the blogger profiles. I would hope that you were all asked, yet I cannot imagine any of you, who normally have so much to say, answering that question with a simple "Democrat".

Finally, it did make me a little proud to see something that so few people pay attention to get some attention. Maybe, in a few years, more people will pay attention to this crazy system of ours...

[Kewalo]

I read the article on Montana blogger via Kos. You sound like an interesting bunch, but you stood out because I have a place in my heart for "rabid partisan liberals." And even if you don't see yourself that way, that's OK, your writing certaily makes up for that.

Plus I am just crazy about the description of republicans as Yellow Elephants...shivering fear junkies. I have been calling them bedwetting thumbsuckers, but your description fits them so much better I may borrow it. I hope you don't mind.

Good luck to you. We're all going to be watching as Tester wins in Nov.

[Monkey]

You'd think the whole state was all bloggers - all of which are liberal.

Not true at all.

And not ONE mention of the Monkey!?!? :-)

[Wulfgar]

Finally, a chance to respond.

Cece, none of the Intelligent Discontent folk were at the party, either. However, I like your point about no women being interviewed. Women have a growing voice in the blogoworld (and if any paid attention, they would know that many women have a solid leadership role on the right side of the break.) Many women on the left are still catching up. That might be a post for the future.

Dave, point well agreed. And, even though you're wrong about everything ~wink~ I think a libertarian entry would have helped soften the harsh devide written into the article.

Shane, I agree with you, but within the article context is key. I refer you to Craig's post about cultural literacy. Like it or not, liberal has become a perjoritive. Perhaps I am a little weak in trying to take the word back ... again, maybe a post for another time.

Craig, I think Jeff said it best:

What I got out of it:

*snip*

b) Rob will come to my apartment and strangle me with piano wire if I disagree with the Democratic party.

Colby, I talked to John for a grand total of 3 minutes, hardly what you'd call a proper interview. His questions were very direct and I answered them as directly as I could, but there wasn't a whole lot of room for nuance or explaination. And yes, I did tell him that I am a Democrat. What I got from the article was that what that means to him and what that means to me are two entirely different things.

Kewalo, thanks.

Monkey, sorry dude.

And finally, Eric:

Bite me. I have many feelings about your website, but envy is your own fantasy. You forget, I had to deal with the Mellon troll before you; I just had the intelligence and courage to smack him down. You, on the other hand, let him fight your battles for you. Now why would I envy that?

[Eric Coobs]

You can have back any of your former trolls.....be my guest!