NYT: Are Bloggers Setting the Agenda? It Depends on the Scandal

[DeepModem Mom]

Are Bloggers Setting the Agenda? It Depends on the Scandal
By TOM ZELLER Jr.
Published: May 23, 2005


....that's the popular mythology. As a result of their influence in incidents like the "60 Minutes" episode in which CBS was duped by forged documents related to the president's National Guard service, bloggers have taken on the role of agenda-setters - citizen scribe-warriors wresting power from a mainstream media grown fat and lazy.

But according to a preliminary study - the first rigorous look at the influence wielded by political blogs during the 2004 presidential campaign - bloggers are not always the kingmakers that pundits sometimes credit them with being. They can, it seems, exert a tremendous amount of influence - generate buzz, that is - but only under certain circumstances....

***

To analyze Web log buzz, the study zeroed in on a few dozen political blogs, from left-leaning forums like Daily Kos and AmericaBlog to conservative ones like Instapundit and Power Line, as well as middle-of-the road sites like BuzzMachine and Wonkette. All were "filter blogs," or blogs that comment on - and link to - content found elsewhere on the Web, according to an emerging taxonomy of the form....

***

In instances in which blogs took the lead, such as the mysterious bulge that appeared on President Bush's back during the first debate (a radio receiver, some liberal blogs posited), they were often unable to get other channels to follow.

The CBS News scandal, in which the network based a critical report on President Bush on what turned out to be forged Vietnam-era documents relating to his National Guard days, was another story. In that case, the researchers suggest, the conditions for a broad-based scandal - and potent blog buzz - were ripe....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/23/technology/23blog.html

[displacedtexan]

1. In other words...

rightwing bloggers = good
leftwing bloggers = bad

Way to go, NYT!

And who decided to give the rightwing bloggers' "60 Minutes" story such prominence?

Why, I do believe it was the NYT!

What a coincidence!

GGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

[doubleplusgood]

2. "what turned out to be forged Vietnam-era documents"

ummmm, don't they really mean that the Bush TANG documents couldn't be verifed ? Didn't think that they were ever "proven" to be forgeries.

[w4rma]

3. You're correct. (nt)

[leftchick]

5. AND they fail to Mention the Secretary interviewed who said....

THE CONTENT WAS ACCURATE!!! :banghead:

[bunkerbuster1]

9. Dan Rather tried to frame the Preznit

Newsweek killed those Afghans.

Kerry lied, good men died.

Get with the program, it's double-plus good!

[PAdem2]

10. Unfortunately

The documents were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be forgeries. Not very good ones at that. Some folks still haven't learned not to jump the gun and when to look out for something that looks to good to be true.

[doubleplusgood]

12. where were they proven forgeries ?

I don't think they could have been proven either to have been valid documents or forgeries, since they were photocopies or faxes (I forget which) of supposed original documents. Without the originals, it's just speculation either way. To state categorically that the documents are forgeries, is an error, IMHO.

[Miss Chybil]

15. That's where I stopped reading.

One lie is enough for me. I'm off to the next article!

[Julius Civitatus]

4. Translation: the media only listen to right-wing blogs and ignore lefties

time and time again.

Two words for you: JAMES GANNON.

If Gannon/Guckert had sneaked in a Democratic presidency and a right-wing blowhard had revealed this embarrassing episode, the media would be ALL OVER THIS SHIT! No question about it.

Another thing the NYT article implies but does not openly say is that the media, in general, treat right-wing bloggers as real media personalities, and take their word at face value. They swallowed everything that the despicable cesspool Powerline fed them during the Dan Rather scandal. They never even questioned the origin of those studies or dared to compare notes. Later on it was revealed most of the info on those documents came from the GOP, but nobody questioned their origin. Instead, they put the burden of proof on Dan Rather.

When Kos, Atrios or AmericaBlog bring any issue, no matter how well researched, the burden of proof is on them, and usually the media treat them as unreliable fire-throwers or activists with an agenda and an ax to grind. The issues they uncover, no matter how evident and clear, are barely ever picked up by the MSM.

This started happening during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when they turned a paid anti-Clinton propagandist like Drudge (a loser with a gossip site financed by right-wing activist Mellon-Scaife), into a mandatory "reliable source." Even to this day, half-wits like Judy Woodruff use Drudge as a source for news reports that later turn out of the GOP-fed propaganda.

In any other civilized country, all this would be a scandal. Here, it's business as usual.

[Al-CIAda]

11. Just how did that moonlighting prostitute blogger get all those scoops?

How did he get all that 'access'?
..and all with ZERO credentials?


In fact, he claimed credit for the Rather memo and was in close contact with Hannity on some of his scoops.

He was a real up-and-cummer.

[Jade Fox]

6. Everyone please email this guy with you excellent points! thanks n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

8. I second that -- there is either deep denial about this, or cluelessness.

NT

[Fight_n_back]

7. Glad to know Im not crazy

I thought I had observed that but Im so sensitive about that bias that Im never sure if Im right or not.

Of course, Scarborough will do a big section on this won't he?

:rofl:

[tranche]

13. Jeff Gannon Conveniently Not Mentioned n/t

[struggle4progress]

14. Scary idea: somebody besides corporate media setting "the agenda" ... eom