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.
Now, considering that I urged a change to the Democrats in Congress in that post, it's pretty clear where Craig is coming from. Why should he, a man that respects the stated values of what the Republicans could be, vote for those who don't agree with those values (Democrats)? That's a damn fair question, so allow me to retort: