The Importance of the Liberal Blogosphere

[Time for change]

Bloggers on the Trail
By Ari Melber
The Nation – March 12, 2007

The netroots are the most aggressive, ascendant force in progressive politics, wielding more members, money and media impact than most liberal organizations. In the 2006 election cycle, MoveOn alone spent more than every other liberal political action committee except the prochoice EMILY's List. According to the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet, online donors gave Kerry $82 million in 2004, and Democrats expect much more in 2008. (Bush pulled only $14 million from the web.) And now top bloggers… have hundreds of thousands of readers, successful books and a bully pulpit in print and broadcast media.

Republicans cannot stop the donations or pressure the media into ignoring liberal bloggers. Instead, the GOP has tried to drive a wedge between Democratic leaders and the netroots by attacking bloggers – and their readers – as an extreme vitriolic embarrassment. During the midterms, the Republican National Committee repeatedly attacked Democratic candidates for accepting netroots donations and working with bloggers… Conservative operatives recently floated smears of anti-Semitism at MoveOn… and Bill O'Reilly regularly denounces the "far left websites." The strategy is to scare Democratic politicians away from tapping their motivated base. Some Democrats are falling into the trap…

"On our blogs, we all say things that might offend someone. Truth is, in life – in bars, in restaurants, in offices, on the phone – we all do that, only now there is...a permanent record," wrote Jeff Jarvis, director of CUNY's interactive journalism program, about the Edwards affair. The very skills that make a good blogger – provoking people with passionate, authentic opinions – are considered a handicap on the campaign trail.

The best political blogs thrive on a discourse built in opposition to the mainstream; people gather to commune in ways not permitted by media and political gatekeepers. The vigorous dialogue is probably closer to voters' real conversations than politicians' sanitized talking points or the breathless speculation that passes for news today, from premature presidential polls to Anna Nicole Smith's death. In the end, campaigns prefer discipline over authenticity, and many bloggers do not. So Democrats should focus on tapping bloggers' energy while managing their passion – and disregard the self-serving complaints of their opponents.

[MissWaverly]

1. they accepted donations from honest people - GASP!!!

No, we should have our candidates cater to the pre-indicted crowd.

NOT.

Even the most tin foil blogger is preferred to somebody who is trying to make a buck
on somebody else's suffering which are the backers of most of the Greedy Old Plunderer's
rank and file.

[Time for change]

3. Yeah, right

Today's Republican Party has to be the worst bunch of assorted hypocrites that have ever ruled our country. Take as much money as you want from multi-millionaire crooks like Jack Abramoff, but God forbid a Democrat should accept money from someone who uses foul language when s/he get mad.
:mad:

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Amen!

K & R

[Time for change]

10. Yes, amen to that!

Maybe in a few years the internet will make the corporate news media virtually obsolete.

[Kber]

11. There is a place for corp news media in investigative reporting

it takes money and infrastructure to send reporters to places to get the facts.

However, they are being(and should be) squeezed out of the professional opinion and "analysis" business, since there are folks on the internets who can do it better, cheaper, and more honestly.

[Time for change]

12. Do you think they do an adequate job of investigative reporting?

[Kber]

13. God no!

I think they spend all their time "analyzing", so when it comes to fact finding, they don't have the time or something.

I just think they could do a good job investigating if they focused on it. And it would save their jobs in the process.

[Time for change]

14. My point is that I don't _ trust _ them to do investigative reporting

The reason that they don't do a good job at it is not because they spend all their time "analyzing" -- rather it's because investigative reporting is a very low priority with them. For example, why didn't they report to the nation that there was no good evidence that Iraq had WMD? It wasn't because they couldn't, it was because they didn't want to. As a matter of fact, they must have known or at least highly suspected -- but they didn't share that with us. They also knew that Bush was wired for sound when he participated in the Presidential debates with Kerry -- but they didn't tell us.

They don't want us to know these things. Their interest is in making money and maintaining the status quo, not the news. The bottom line is that THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED.

[MissWaverly]

15. they don't do it becuz they are talking heads

the news now boils down to 2 people chatting in a studio with some canned footage that
they repeat incessantly, there's maybe 10 stories that they repeat all day.
What passes for news is some sort of monologue, no wonder people consider TDS news.

[Nikki Stone1]

4. K & R

:kick:

[Time for change]

5. John Conyers, when he wrote his great report, "The Constitution in Crisis"

thanked the liberal blogosphere for all the assistance that they provided for him in doing the research for his investigation:

I would like to give credit to the “blogosphere” for its myriad and invaluable contributions to me and my staff. Absent the assistance of “blogs” and other internet based media, it would have been impossible to assemble all the information, sources and other materials necessary to the preparation of this report. Whereas the so-called “mainstream media” has frequently been willing to look past the abuses of the Bush administration, the blogosphere has proven to be a new and important bulwark of our Nation’s first amendment freedoms.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2401464

[Morgana LaFey]

6. disregard the complaints of their opponents?

Why, the Democrats can't do THAT. That might mean they have spines. And independence. And character. And integrity.

Pshaw!

[Time for change]

7. Well they'd better learn to do it if they know what's good for them

They need us a lot more than they need to do what's expected of them by the corporate media.

[Senator]

8. As likely as Pavlov's dog disregarding the bell

But we can retrain them. Or replace them.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

--

[Time for change]

9. They don't even have a choice

If all they worry about is doing what the corporate media expects them to do we'll end up with a Republican Congress and President in 08.