Yeah, one has to be careful when using certain words, I guess.

Of course, I'll take wizbang's words over that Professor, but I guess according to Brokaw, that makes me a Political Jihadist.

I still like Pajamahadeen better...

Regards,
Sonar5
"Been at it quite while now....."

Can't we all just get along?

Blogs (run by say 1-3 people) can't replace big time media outlets. Why? Simple economics, they don't have the resources. There is no other reason.

Let me repeat that. There is no other reason. One person can be a good journalist. Now in the age of the internet one person can publish their stories.

The greatest thing about the blogosphere is the vast amount of different opinions and approaches. From complete demogouges to more well reasoned or more objective people, sometimes both. And we as "consumers", I put that is quotes cause its mostly free, can pick and choose what we want. But if you notice most links go back to a big media outlet of some sort. I usually use blogs as a BS filter frankly, as odd as that sounds since they promulgate alot of BS.

I share alot of Bill's skepticism on these philosophical issues. I also have some technical suspicions about blogs evolving theirs formats. But I do believe that through the conflict of these ideas, even the irrational ones, we are enriched.

With this somewhat silly pen dealie we saw the whole gammut of honesty and lunacy and a bit of gotcha. Jeez that this issues sparked so much debate is amazing. But in the end we arrived at something at least fairly clear. If it hand't been cleared up you can bet some people would be floating around conspiracy theories for quite a bit. And yet attacks came out immediately. And moonbattery ensued. I agree with Allah this wasn't a big deal. But I see no reason to attack someone for trying to establish what the facts were. Whatever the reasons, partisan or curiousity. If someone has a valid point and you attack them for it then, imho, your being a weasel. I dont expect politicians to be honorable, so this pocketgate wasn't a big deal to me, but I was perfectly willing to allow that maybe its a big thing to Bill.

It seems that its human nature to try to get other people to act the way you wish they would. So I will close with a statment that sums up the great thing about the blogosphere. If you don't like it, if you think you can do better, then put it in your own blog. Hey, maybe you will convince someone of something.

That was a great comment. Maybe you need to start a blog!

Courage. Bill....

If fools rush in where angels fear to tread, please be a fool. You have nothing to fear.

Showing a single frame to prove their point was an attempt to smack the blogs down. I still want to see the raw feeds, but I am 'pretty' sure they will show a pen.

The news cycle worked to MSM advantage this time, but remember, you forced admission of wrong doing. (just a pen, granted)

You bravely held up a lit bomb. Drudge held it up too. It was news.

Michele, and I love her blog, has let her media appearances go to her head. She wants her own show.

Moonbat or wingnut ctob ... I still want to see the damned raw feeds... not a still shot.

Wingnut.

Crazy thing Bill is that I have been a-political all my life. Never cared. This election has me climbing the walls.... and yeah... Has me wingnutting hard.

I don’t take any offense to Michelle’s post. I doubt that Michelle would even know my blog, considering I’ve only been doing this for a month now. My comment here is in response to some of the comments that have appeared here on INDC and other blogs over the past few days.

When Bill and I decided to put together our joint post we were extremely careful not to do it in a shrill manner.

I recorded the video, slowed down the section in question where Kerry removed an object from his jacket – and Bill put together some copy that was clear: Bringing any object to the podium was a violation of the agreement outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding.

This morning, I called Fox News and spoke with a producer who was helpful enough to go and review the tape from another angle. Within minutes of the producer describing the object as a pen, both Bill and I had updated our blogs.

Special Report with Brit Hume showed a freeze fame of the pen, and both of our blogs had posted a screenshot before the show was even over.

I would submit that in identifying, pursuing, and solving the nature of Kerry’s violation of the debate agreement in one day, both Daily Recycler and INDC Journal were not only diligent, but in fact demonstrated a journalistic ethic not always seen in the mainstream media.

Criticism seems to come in two forms:

1)It was just a pen.
Great. The reason you know that to be true is because of INDC Journal, Daily Recycler, or Fox News – who ran the clip after we contacted them.

2)It’s a stupid issue, who cares?
The idea that bloggers should not pursue an investigation because it doesn’t serve a political advantage seems a bit silly. The amount of attention this received because of the Drudge Report was not in our control. Whether or not it’s a “big deal”, we posted on the violation – investigated – and updated with the result.

Given that our initial post provided evidence of a breach of the terms of agreement, it would appear to me that the real complaint coming from some quarters is that the story didn’t materialize into a full blown scandal. And if my analysis is well founded, it would suggest that it’s really those detractors of this story who are encouraging the “scoop” style blogging that they claim to detest by holding it to such a high standard of influence over the media cycle.

That being said, I appreciate the calls for calm yesterday while readers of our blogs and others were speculating over what Kerry might have pulled from his jacket. Bill and I didn’t set out to whip up a hyperventilated audience, and said as much in our original post.

As Charles pointed out in a post tonight at Little Green Footballs, what we’ve ended up with at the end of these two days is video evidence of a violation of the debate rules, and a bunch of people who don’t care; which is no reason at all for anyone involved with covering the story to apologize or otherwise sulk about the state of blogging.

I hate repeating myself, but I'll summarize some things I posted at Wizbang and exchanged in email with Kevin.

I took two years of journailism in college, edited my college paper and have written freelance long ago. I possess every credential required to be a professional journalist. As does just about everyone with a blog.

Journalist: 1.One whose occupation is journalism. 2.One who keeps a journal.

If someone wishes to characterize themselves a "journalist" here - I prefer e-journalist, they've every right to do so. It is up to the reader to determine if they are a "good" journalist, or a "poor" one. You can be an "Inquirer," or an "Enquirer".

If I wish to do a "column" one day, or everyday, I may do so. If I want to and can do hard news, that is my right. Many bloggers, Powerline comes to mine, also write for publication. Do they wear different PJ's when writing for one, and not another? And would that make a difference? No.

Of course, it would be foolish for one individual to think they can compete with the MSM, but I haven't observed anyone I read doing that, not really. What happened at Wizbang was what should happen to any developing medium. It will educate them and others and if some choose to not learn certain lessons - ultimately their readership and only their readership should judge them - by staying or leaving. What is happening in the blogosphere is now evolutional, not revolutional. Some, like ASV will choose one path, some another - God Bless them both. Ultimately, there is no right or wrong.

I have no enemies here and few friends, I prefer the latter. But I did notice that ASV mentioned traffic being down in the relevant post. I found that a bit ironic given the thrust of the post. If someone blogs in a way that doesn't maintain or increase traffic, so what? As long as they are doing what "they" enjoy?

And if one wants to get traffic, they should understand the nature of a free market and write for it. Or not make traffic and advertising part of the plan.

I've no idea where the blogosphere is going, but it is moving - as it must. As a relative newcomer, I personally resent the influx of media types who can enter here with some fanfare and likely capture significant traffic right away. Geesh, I may make another enemy here.

Hugh is currently pushing a new blogger. She obviously has great credentials and will likely have a great "blog." Yet, how many people (not me, as I haven't been here long enough) have typed away in silence doing good hard work for a long, long time and would kill for such an advertisement. But it ain't gonna happen. And, in the end, that has to be ok, too.

My greatest fear is that the MSM - left and right - will co-opt the blogosphere, if they haven't already done so. I would much rather see the Wizbang's and the INDC's and Powerline's elevate themselves as they are doing, than see new but polished opportunists take over the medium.

Right now, the people who really got this thing going need to stick together, not come apart. Change is inevitable. I hope the pioneers of this medium are able to sort things out, each find their best place, or come together to create an even greater place while all retain the spirit with which you started as the foundation for your future growth.

None of us know where this is going. But should a body wish to stay, all one can do is buckle up, sort yourself out, think over your blog and perhaps your mission, and hang on for the ride.

As someone else said - Courage.

You wrote:

Blogging doesn't need to be either/or - personal piquant, acerbic rants and cookie recipes, or "independent, peer reviewed journalism." It can be both.

Michele, at the very beginning of her post, wrote:

There are some bloggers who dabble in journalism. There are some bloggers who definitely are pure journalists. And there are bloggers who think that posting about one breaking news item makes them a reporter.

Where's the contradiction? She'e explicitly acknowledging that "blogging" and "journalism" aren't mutually exclusive. Presumably you're seizing on what she had to say at the end of her post when she appeared to draw a distinction between the two, but I read that as simply a response to what Paul of Wizbang said. He was the one pulling the "I'm X, not Y" move, and she called him on it.

You proceed to say:

[Michele's] advice is contradictory - watch out, because your words are important, but at the same time, "there's a dark evil change on the horizon," and we need to remember that at heart, we're just little old diarists.

In the first place, she never used the word "evil". She said "there's a dark sort of change happening in this end of the blogosphere". In the second place, you're making it sound here like the "dark change" to which she's referring is the rise of serious journalism in the blogosphere. It's not. What she's referring to is the recent trend towards careless journalism in the blogosphere. Here's the key passage:

With the adrenaline of Rathergate still in their veins, they are making a heady, if understandable, attempt to keep the sugar rush going and I don't think they are being very careful about what they are consuming in the process.

As far as naming the guilty parties, yes, I do think Paul's labeling Dr. Hailey a "fraud" and a "charlatan" in his first post on the subject at Wizbang was careless, notwithstanding the fact that Paul did a very good job analyzing Hailey's work. Evidently Kevin agrees or else he wouldn't have apologized to Hailey earlier today. I also thought it was a bit careless of you to assume the worst in Pengate, notwithstanding the fact that you did an excellent job in exposing what clearly was a violation of the debate rules. And yes, to anticipate your response, I do realize that you said in your original post that you weren't hyperventilating over the significance of the violation. The fact is, you were talking about note cards in that post even before you got to the part about not hyperventilating, and then you started talking about them again in your fourth update. Clearly the subtext was that Kerry had cheated in a way that gave him an unfair advantage, which is an awfully serious accusation to make without good evidence to support it. To your credit, you've been scrupulous about correcting the record as new information has come out, but, as you yourself recently acknowledged, post hoc corrections to journalistic errors are necessarily imperfect solutions. So yes, I do think it was a bit careless, but no more so than when I started throwing around the names of possible forgers at the beginning of Rathergate. You called me out on that at the time, and you were absolutely right to do so. Remember? You said:

I think it's more acceptable to openly speculate in the blogosphere than Dean suggests (it's the nature of the beast), but I also think that bloggers might do the credibility of the story some favors if they tempered their claims or actually buttressed them by picking up the phone and contacting sources. . . .

And I'll second Dean's disclaimer: "I want to be very clear that I respect all of these bloggers, I just think they are getting overexhuberant [sic] and may be blundering into a terrible error."

Isn't that exactly Michele's point here? Overexuberance in getting "the scoop" leading to bad judgment? If so, then there's no contradiction at all in what she said about bloggers' words being important. They are important, and they become more important the more "journalistic" one's blogging is. That's why we need to be more careful with them.

Let me conclude by saying that I'm puzzled by your attempts to chide Michele with examples from Rathergate. She's never knocked any blogger for pursuing that story. On the contrary, she pursued it herself. Vigorously. On two blogs. With many links to you and LGF and Powerline (and me), if memory serves. I don't think we need to question the basic news sense of one of the founders of Command Post simply because she thinks a little more care was called for in this particular case. Which is not to say that I don't sympathize with your frustration: I can only imagine the kind of inane bullshit you've been putting up with from moonbats left and right ever since the Pengate story broke. But still, to get this defensive about it -- who's really the one acting like Tom Brokaw here?

"There are some bloggers who dabble in journalism. There are some bloggers who definitely are pure journalists. And there are bloggers who think that posting about one breaking news item makes them a reporter."

What part of that didn't you understand? The rest of your post is based on the premise that I slam ALL bloggers, that I'm calling RatherBiased, et al liars for calling themselves journalists. It's as if you completely skipped over that part of what I said.

"Regarding Rathergate, any fret over the new media holding an egregious MSM violation to account is petty and foolish carping. Period."

This wasn't about Rathergate, Bill. I never disparaged a single blogger about that issue. I posted about it often, I was triumphant about it. It was a GOOD thing and I said so on many occasions. We even spoke on the phone about it, so how could you stretch my post to say that I was fretting over holding Rather accountable?

I never questioned your Rathergate work, Bill. In fact, I praised it often, as I did the work of RB, LGF, Allah, Powerline and others who did the hard work on the story.

"What is the abusive, scary, exasperated journalism that you speak of?" Also: "watch out, because your words are important, but at the same time, "there's a dark evil change on the horizon," and we need to remember that at heart, we're just little old diarists."

You're making my words much harsher than they actually were in order to make your point. Unfair, Bill.

Why didn't I come out and say who I was talking about? Because it wasn't necessary to the point I was making. It was a blog post about ME and the way I feel about the blogosphere right now. It wasn't directed at one particular person or one particular story (and was not meant to disparage any work on the Rather story).

I expect Tom Brokaw to try and put bloggers in their place, but not one of our own. You may be just writing a rant into your diary, and generally shy away from embracing your very real influence, but like it or not, you're a leader, and your words have consequences, especially on a day when a couple of your peers could use a hand up rather than a foot in face.

To insinuate that I've done some kind of disservice to the blogosphere by stating my feelings on a subject matter is ridiculous. Do I now have to temper everything I say, make sure that I'm not setting a bad example or saying something negative about another blogger or blogging in general? Do I have to check on everyone's well being before I make some commentary?

but like it or not, you're a leader, and your words have consequences, This doesn't seem to bother anyone when I'm talking shit about Wonkette or Kos.

Allah came to my defense much better than I did. Please read his comment again. I echo all his points.

And to Brett, who said "Michele, and I love her blog, has let her media appearances go to her head. She wants her own show."

What media appearances? One radio show I did last week for two minutes? Get a grip, buddy.

I also wanted to address the title of your post, "A Response to Fear and Contempt for the New Paradigm," which again makes my words out to be harsher than they were. I don't have contempt for anyone. Hardly. Not even Paul, as some have imagined (in fact, I exchanged emails with Paul last night on this subject). I'm sorry if my feelings came across as contempt but they were in no way meant to convey that. Honestly, I think you're the only one who read into it in that way. As for your use of the word "fear," I can just say that I fear what will happen if bloggers are not careful in pursuing the story. That's my only fear.

I've got 50 comments and 15 trackbacks on that post, Bill. If you're going to slam me for expressing my feelings, then give equal time to all who agreed with me.

I never doubted your journalistic abilities, Bill. I've admired them since you started blogging and I've told you so many times. Intereting how you couldn't take that into account when writing this and you just assumed I was slamming everything you've done here.

Bill,

I have taken everything Michele says with a huge grain of salt for a very long time. She is a gifted writer, but she is also extremely over-opinionated and overly positive about her own 'rightness' - and with Michele, you are pretty much with her or agin her.

INDC Journal is one of the first blogs I read every day, and if I have a chance, I come back for more.

Michele's blog is often hurtful and unfair to people - she has often been oh, so holier than though - I take her off my blogroll and put her back on depending on how I feel about her current temperment. It's probably time to take her off again. Not that she would notice or care.

I think that she is being especially unfair. I think she is jealous.

What Allah said.

Look, Bill, I really like your work here - I've been following it for a long time, probably since shortly after you started. You do good work in general: that's why you get as many DailySPam! links from me as you do in my blogdom roundups.

I think you're off target in your reading of Michele's post and of her general critique. For the same reasons Allah stated.

Personally? I think Paul has a slight case of triumphalism going awry, and I don't buy the "Satire! That was it! Satire!" addendum. *shrug* Your mileage may differ, natch.

Gee, Beth. I had no idea you felt that way. I'm good to go to when you want a link, though, eh?

The fact is, you were talking about note cards in that post even before you got to the part about not hyperventilating, and then you started talking about them again in your fourth update. Clearly the subtext was that Kerry had cheated in a way that gave him an unfair advantage, which is an awfully serious accusation to make without good evidence to support it.

And what if that was the subtext, Allah? So what? It was a relatively responsible presentation (compared to MOST daily blogger fare), and you imply that I have some inherent responsibility to act like the NYT, lest my vast power cause some sort of damage.

This from a guy that has more average readers than me, yet puts up a hilarious yet offensive, tasteless photoshop at the tail-end of the traffic spike. A guy that runs the most un-pc themed site on the net. And do you really want me to comb through your archives and find some posts with a subtext of speculation that is far worse and more irresponsible than anything that I've published in the last month, let alone several days? I actively tried to avoid drawing irresponsible conclusions during Rathergate, because so much rumor-mongering could have killed the cred that would drive the story. But your site and others engaged in a game of Clue that named names and at times showcased a wildly speculative thought process. I don't think that there's much wrong with it, but it's incredibly hypocritical of you to cast aspersions on someone else's speculative post, just because it happens to have the potential for negative blowback in your carefully scripted Rovian analysis of what's good for Bush in the election.

Your warning's may be sober, but you are speaking from a house made of glass. And your scorn is selective.

Where's the contradiction? She'e explicitly acknowledging that "blogging" and "journalism" aren't mutually exclusive.

The "subtext" of contempt was clear as a bell, specifically regarding what constitutes a good nature of the blog world and what constitutes it at "it's worst."

In the first place, she never used the word "evil". She said "there's a dark sort of change happening in this end of the blogosphere".

The henpecking of "evil" is semantics.

In the second place, you're making it sound here like the "dark change" to which she's referring is the rise of serious journalism in the blogosphere. It's not. What she's referring to is the recent trend towards careless journalism in the blogosphere.

What is the recent trend? Two posts? Wizbang's and mine? Does that a trend make? Or an excuse to criticize threatening changes? Sort of like the basis for the CBS draft story? Mistakes will be made. And this excludes the fact that whatever the tone of those posts ...

A. they were nothing out of the ordinary for blogger posts - I also still strongly feel that my post was relatively responsible.

B. The factual assertions were 100% right in my post, and solid in Wizbang's.

I think it's more acceptable to openly speculate in the blogosphere than Dean suggests (it's the nature of the beast), but I also think that bloggers might do the credibility of the story some favors if they tempered their claims or actually buttressed them by picking up the phone and contacting sources. . . .

I still believe what I wrote, and I'm not perfect. But no matter the charge, I stand firmly by the fact that my draft post was not phrased in an irresponsible manner. I believed that they looked like notes and clearly hedged on my speculation. In contrast, what I was referring to in my previous statement was the wild speculation that named names of private citizens with damaging accusations and NO proof.

You of all people (with your behind the scenes knowledge of the work that I was doing) should know that I was incredibly responsible during Rathergate, and way more responsible and factual than you, for example. And I think taht there was nothing wrong with your largely excellent analysis and speculation - as it is, most of it was correct. But for you to publicly criticize me now (which you admittedly did in mild and non-offensive tones in your post on the pen), just because in this case, you fear political blowback that may hurt your candidate, is hypocritical.

I'm sorry. I thought that your post was ok, and your early admonitions were primarily right, but if you follow your own logic, your days of speculation that's unsupported by evidence, and offensive photoshops are over. And also be sure to remove any speculation or defamatory statements about John Kerry's motivations or behavior, Allah. Afer all, they could get picked up by Drudge, and that would be irresponsible.

You can defend Michele's piece if you so choose, but do me a favor - don't just defend it piecemeal and with specific excerpts - defend the subtext. Specifically, the subtext that expresses patronizing scorn for those of us that are working our asses off, deriding us as manipulative traffic junkies that cynically seek to achieve fame and fortune, on a day when we make errors and could use help from our friends, not public back-seat driving and ridicule.

My efforts in real journalism are not solely based around a desire to achieve wealth and fame, or I'd have been on Paula Zahn by now. I started doing investigative work because it's fun and I wanted to make a real difference. Because I wanted answers to questions that I have that no one is answering. Because I wanted to reveal that the anti-war protests that you see on TV are primarily staffed by communists and lunatics. Because I wanted to talk to veterans and pay tribute to my family. Because I wondered what it was like for someone to lose a kid in war yet bizarrely fall in with a bunch of protestors that celebrate the Iraqi resistance. And among other things, because I have become unbelievably fed up with MSM bias and distortion, and I wanted to call them on it. To make a difference. I may not score cleanly 100% of the time, but any implication about my motivations to the contrary is a highly personal insult.

Defend that portion of her post that questions motivations for work - if you choose to defend anything, because that's what bothered the heck out of me.

Bill, you're still going on the assumption that my post was specifically about you.

It wasn't.

Michele -

A fuller accounting will have to wait, but defend this:

I'm seeing people that are straining to hold onto the post-Rather stats and the rush that came with them and it makes me uncomfortable in sort of the same way that watching someone make a horrible mistake in a movie does; I just want to turn it off until that part is over and hope that when I turn it back on, everything's worked out.

Several things:

Other than Wizbang who are you talking about? Who is doing irresponsible journalism in search of a fix?

And on a day where I happen to be under siege, even though bloggers that do no journalism were running around with wildly bizarre interpretations of my post, why would you post that? When what I could have really used is some support or at least silence.

You didn't do a disservice to the blogosphere, you did a disservice to Paul and me.

The reason is, because your post speaks in the broadest of generalizations about a very narrow subset of people doing journalism, on a day of questionable "scoops" and legal blowback, there's only a few people that you could be talking about.

You can pick specific bits to defend and defend them well, and the funny thing is, I agree with much of your post, but the subtext is clear, and certain passages are just mean. Irresponsible, even.

My words are harsh to make a point?

I was kind to you, Michele. Believe me. There is a respectful way to level criticism without offending your targets (as I did in the previous cautionary post that Allah mentioned), but the paragraph and elements of the subtext that has inspired my ire is not the way to do it.

I'll have to table this till later, as I have work to do.

Whoa! Everybody. I read every single one of you every day. Is there a full moon or what? Each of you bring your own unique ideas to the table. Michele is not jeolous nor big-headed. I find her as factual as InDC or Betsy and rarely if ever see unwarranted verbiage.

I thought you were all friends of sorts but this is bickering into self implosion. Is that what you want? To sink into the depths of DK or DU. Come on. You're all way better than this.

I love to read Bill and I love to read Michelle. I don't see anything more than a concern from Michelle that bloggers in general get caught up in the maelstrom of Rathergate.

Please for all of us lamers that can't write a decent page. Kiss and make up.

Bill, Michele and Allah: Please see my email (from my work address)... There's money involved.

Does anyone else think this string is starting to sound like a fierce debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Has "journalism" taken on biblical dimensions?

I don't know about others, but I spend several hours a day surfing the net trying to figure for myself what's true and what isn't.

When I find a blogger who tells the truth, updates and corrects postings when necessary, is well written and occasionally humorous, I bookmark it. When, as is the case of Andrew Sullivan, the blogger turns our to have an agenda I don't share and stops telling the truth, he or she is un-bookmarked and no longer a source of information.

That this site is receiving its harshest criticism from those who share our conservative views is not surprising. Instead of celebrating that one of our own is receiving well-deserved recognition, there are those who prefer to tear him or her down proving yet again that "a prophet hath no honour in his own country." John: 44.

INDC -- Thanks and keep it up the good work. For what it's worth, your blog has been moved up to my Must Read list.

So, there's a VP debate tonight and apparently Edwards said "you have to be out of your mind to vote for Bush," as reported on Nightline last night.

Damn, I hate a lull in a good election, kind of like the silly season in golf. Moonbat hats off, five minutes in separate corners - eveyone "breath." ahhh ... So, I'm seriously hoping that Cheney pulls an Ozzy tonight and bites the head off of Senator Opie "You're not in Mayberry anymore", Edwards. I guess we'll see.

I thought you were all friends of sorts but this is bickering into self implosion.

You are being incredibly hyperbolic.

This is what bloggers do.

If I was talking about Oliver Willis and Kos, and not my friends, tehre wouldn't be DNA left to identify.

Your blog is excellent. Don't sweat the crap. IT'S A BLOG PEOPLE. And this is one of the best, even if Bill is too conserative for my taste.

Folks, I read each and every one of you each day with great enthusiasm. I think all of you are great contributors to the Blogosphere. I offered this advice yesterday, and Im offering it again.

Try Decaf. Relax.

The Rathergate episode has indeed raised the bar on what bloggers do and what the general public expects of them. Im general public, and suddenly I AM looking for something more than cat pictures. although cute ones are still nice. especially when they are all cuddly and.. nevermind. Point is, the next time a big thing happens, maybe , and im NOT saying anybody did this, a bit more care about the....enthusiasm level should be taken. I believe the words "dancing like a schoolgirl with giddieness" were used. When Rathergate broke we (meaning You) were speaking in hushed whispers of disbelief, and everybody was fact checking everything in order to get.it.right. Before we reached a conclusion. The way Pengate was handled was different. I will say AGAIN, no one here did this, but some other sites reached a conclusion before definitive proof was achieved, and that makes the rest of the bloggers look like...well , moonbats.

Please take this as constructive critism, and the bad spelling and punctuation that it is. I sincerly respect each of you and your own unique styles. I only type because I love. Michelle especially, but thats a gender/boobie thing.

Folks, I read each and every one of you each day with great enthusiasm. I think all of you are great contributors to the Blogosphere. I offered this advice yesterday, and Im offering it again.

Try Decaf. Relax.

The Rathergate episode has indeed raised the bar on what bloggers do and what the general public expects of them. Im general public, and suddenly I AM looking for something more than cat pictures. although cute ones are still nice. especially when they are all cuddly and.. nevermind. Point is, the next time a big thing happens, maybe , and im NOT saying anybody did this, a bit more care about the....enthusiasm level should be taken. I believe the words "dancing like a schoolgirl with giddieness" were used. When Rathergate broke we (meaning You) were speaking in hushed whispers of disbelief, and everybody was fact checking everything in order to get.it.right. Before we reached a conclusion. The way Pengate was handled was different. I will say AGAIN, no one here did this, but some other sites reached a conclusion before definitive proof was achieved, and that makes the rest of the bloggers look like...well , moonbats.

Please take this as constructive critism, and the bad spelling and punctuation that it is. I sincerly respect each of you and your own unique styles. I only type because I love. Michelle especially, but thats a gender/boobie thing.

Bill, Michele, Allah, & anyone else,

I come to blogs for the same reasons that most others do, and it's the exact same reasons that most of you started blogs:

1. Fact check the MSM's ass.
2. Find out about things going on in the world that the MSM won't cover because of their collective bias.
3. See if I'm the only one who thinks something about a certain event or topic. (read "MSM Hairy Steaming Bullshit Detection Filters).
4. Commune & converse with others whose interests are the same as mine.

You could add a few more in there, but I think that, in the most general terms, these will suffice.

I, for one, will stop dropping in on a site as soon as I get the unwelcome feeling that the person or people running it are no longer just regular people blogging for the sheer enjoyment of it.

I don't give a Tinker's damn about the subject matter.

The second I sense that someone is posting in order to keep ad revenues up, they will have crossed the line, and they are now a member of the MSM, NOT a person who knows something and wants to share it, or someone who doesn't know something and wants to find out.

Bloggers, it will show in your posts. You will not be able to hide it. See, for example, Steven Den Beste. He quit because it seemed more like a responsibility to him than a fun leisure activity. Towards the end, it showed, both in content and frequency…and I sorely, sorely miss Den Beste. For some of you, the motivation will be different, but the quality of your output will reflect it just the same.

Bottom line: I come to blogs for passionate, provocative, refreshing voices that love to blog, whatever their area of expertise, period.

I suspect the vast, vast majority of us are this way as well.

Very respectfully submitted,

Semper Fi,
Capt Smythe

I think you guys are all overreacting. Here's my take:

1) Michele's warning is well taken. Blogger's can't be so concerned with getting the scoop that they act irresponsibly or give up on the mix of reporting and all-around other stuff that makes blogging unique and distinct from other media. The idea that blogging is journalism by other means and only that is absurd.

2) Bill was too quick to assume that Michele was talking about him. I assumed from the tone of her piece that she was talking about the blogsphere in general.

3) Personally, I thought "pen gate" or whatever you want to call it, was ridiculous. Yeah, Kerry shouldn't have brought the pen, but his offense was no worse than driving 40 in a 35 zone. It did appear to me that a few bloggers were trying to engineer a "gotcha".

4) To their credit, those same bloggers have been quick to acknowlege that the item in question was a pen, and that the "offense" was fairly innocuous - which is a order of magnitude greater in terms of journalistic responsibility than anything you'd see out of the MSM.

5) To cut those same bloggers some further slack, Michele would do well to remember that stories on the blogsphere happen in real time. Opinions and speculation get posted before all the evidence is in. This is the nature of the medium, because bloggers rely on their readers to fill in the gaps of the stories. It's messy, and sometimes it's going to lead to dead ends, but that's how blogging works.

6) In her piece, Michele laments her own declining traffic, and speculates that the variety of topics, as opposed to straight "news" on her site may be driving them away. That may be true, but on the other hand, it may also be her habit of "quitting" every few months, and her constant complaints about her readers. Don't get me wrong - for me, personally, Michele's prickliness is part of what makes her interesting, but I can see where others would find it a turnoff.

Anyway, those are my insufficiently caffinated ruminations on the whole thing. Maybe after cogitating on this some more, I'll make a more fully-formed post on my own blog on the subject. I'll track yez back if I do.

Before I can comment on this in any meaningful way, I need to know from Bill and Recycler: did you email out the link to your story to anybody?

Be honest now. I didn't get an email, I know that. But did you email the link out to anyone else?

No. I e-mailed Reynolds after he credited Drudge (which is certainly an attempt at credit), but I did not issue one release on the original post, that I can recall.

We discussed it, but toned down our initial excitement and revised the character of the post to be less serious and more equivocal.

We also considered a very humorous post at first, but settled on a more straightforward treatment, with only a couple of slightly light-hearted references.

The cheat sheet has been found:

http://www.fraterslibertas.com/2004_10_01_archive.html#109693735088299152

Did Recycler mail it out to anyone?

I have no idea - I don't think so, he's on West Coast time, and Drudge picked it up pretty early. I believe that Drudge saw it from lurking here or perhaps LGF.

I am new to the blogosphere having discovered it during the CBS memo fiasco, I was amazed at the wealth of information, but more importantly, logical thought. For me, it was like having friends over for coffee without the burden of having to respond. I could read and learn on a different level from Yahoo news, the Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Post Online, my other daily reading. Keep up the good work. Whether or not the blogosphere is journalism or journal-ism is immaterial. You provide value, and unlike MSM, you admit to mistakes, which puts you higher in my esteem.

And Jeff -

I understand your point about pimping the post, but I've actually pimped posts with wilder speculation combined with original journalism before, and never imagined that they'd get picked up by Drudge. As you can imagine, we went through alternate emotions of elation and concern when it got picked up, but it was out of our hands.

I can say this - based on the specific rules and the tape (which I thought was funny as hell) - I don't think it's a poor judgment to think taht the post merited some blog attention. In retrospect, however, I would have made teh assertion with much less flourish.

I will freely admit that. I would have played it as a complete funny post (with a mild admonition about the rules), or an incredibly dry item - not in between.

The conflict lies in the fact that blog posts are swinging into a realm where they can be taken as criticaly serious journalism, and it's very, very hard for bloggers to walk that fine line.

Michele seems to admit that fear and doubt about her future relevancy may be affecting in her perspective:

"The new guard of bloggers are taking off... And some of us are standing here looking back and looking forward and wondering when it was that we let the bus pass us by. Or maybe not so much that we let it pass as much as it just zoomed on by without stopping."

I'm considering taking up blogging, and before Rathergate had been around to see what bloggers are up to on the web. Just when I was starting to form a rough idea that, yes, I might be able to add value, blogs like InDC began breaking stories, doing original research, meeting with and phoning actual participants for interviews, and participating in a cross-pollination that produced an exponential - not geometric - increase in the blogosphere's impact.

Frankly, I felt like a has-been before I'd even blogged. I'm getting over it now, and it's helped me refocus on the key question of what I might do that could help others enough to make the effort worthwhile. I'm delighted that the blogosphere is evolving, but all the same this latest, perhaps historic leap forward was a shock to my early perceptions of how I might fit in.

The thing is, there's room for everyone. There are literally millions of blogs and personal sites that have small to moderate to massive spehres of influence outside of news or politics. A blog doesn't have to do journalism to be important and add relevance to the debate - so don't feel fettered by some standard construct.

Just blog. Do what you desire to do, not what you think will make the biggest splash. The result will come naturally.

I don't think it's that hard, honestly. The problem comes when you try to straddle that line, I think.

Honestly? Your post read to me as if you were adding a touch of levity to give yourself an out should the story turn out bogus. Which is something I do all the time -- the difference being that everyone knows to read me with a grain of salt.

You might need to be more obvious either way -- post is serious / post is speculative and humorous -- until people get a better sense of what you're doing here.

I agree wholeheartedly. Point well-taken.

Bill, I said something of this sort before on another comment string, but you said it better:

All blogs are not journalism outlets and nor should they be; I've laid out my personal belief that blogs and the MSM have more of a necessary symbiotic relationship than one that's fueled by exclusive competition and natural enmity.

that relationship is necessary for people who want to see what's behind the curtain, rather (pun intended) than just what the reporter chooses to compile and paste together. you and many others do a great job of this for me. (long promised subscription being paid now.)

I don't have much stake in this "blogger beware" conversation, except to say that it's a good one -- and it's not surprising that someone as introspective as Michele has broached it, or that someone as intent on integrity as you picked up on it. like many others have expressed, we read you for what you bring to discussions as well as for what you post on -- humorous, serious or both. so, Luther, write on!

"Michele, Michele, Michele!" *Said in my best Jan Brady voice*
Seems to me blogging is about expressing opinion and asking questions. Thats what the whole "whats Kerry pulling out of his pocket" debate was about. ASKING.
You do great work Bill, just put me on your damn blogroll! Who needs Michele? *wink*

Two points..

1) When I posted my first comment I hadn't yet made the connection between Michele of ASV and Michele of Command-Post. I plead newbiness. I have traded emails with Michele (in her Command Post capacity) before, she has linked to me, and I take back anything I said about her not knowing who I am. I'm sorry, Michele.

2) In response to Jeff's question: No, I didn't email anyone at all before Drudge linked me. I posted on Saturday night, went out to a bar with some friends, and woke up with a little hangover and a big traffic spike.

ARRGG! My link was wrong on previous post.
Michele probably never does that.

It's probably best that this argument happened sooner rather than later, heh. I wasn't even aware Bill was getting his balls busted over the debate thing (not by Allah and Michele I mean). But I suppose I should have from the Drudge link and the lefties slamming it.

IMO, Bill acted in accordance with how the bloggers have acted for well over a year and did a decent job. However, after the Rather thing, it appears you guys are being watched pretty closely by bigger people like Drudge for "scoops" without quite understanding the medium for that. The problem came when Drudge got involved early on before Bill or Wizbang were able to follow up their speculation.

In that enviroment, it's become clear to everyone that Allah's advice is important. Things have changed and I don't think it was fair, Bill, to criticize him for his past speculation because you guys all worked in a different environment back then. I took it more as advice than an admonition. I took much of Michele's post the same way.

However, when Michele went into chastisement mode, that was unfair. Everybody is learning which way is up after the last few weeks. Questioning the motivations of those that are doing their own research on stories as a bunch of traffic whores was even more unfair. They've been doing today what they were doing a year ago because they're curious about the answers, not their traffic.

I probably just stated the obvious since it seems all this was misunderstanding from all sides but it had to be cleared up sooner or later =p.

Anyway, for what it's worth, if Drudge and other media are lurking here for "news", we'll just have to keep that in mind and adapt the way we all post so that we aren't taken as gospel until things get all sorted out to avoid getting burned. We all know that the Rather stuff had some misleading trails early on but that wasn't a big issue because that was thrown out and buried before it hit the major public. We just need to be a lot more clear when we're speculating and when we're actually reaching a conclusion.

Looks like you figured that out the hard way, Bill. Bandage up the stubbed toe and keep going because you did a decent job with it all total even if it turned out to be a tempest in a tea pot.

Thanks. Re:

I took it more as advice than an admonition.

I love advice. Especially when it's e-mailed to me.

And yes, the hate mail was particularly intense over the past 24 hours.

Tee Bee still owes me like, a thousand dollars.

It seems to me that there is one lesson for you, Bill, and it's essentially what Jeff said. Play it funny or straight, the middle ground is the dangerous part.

Beyond that, I find it nearly impossible to believe that Michelle wasn't implicitly (hell, it seemed pretty explicit to me, honestly) saying exactly what you took offense to. Further, it's impossible to read her post and not find a few hints as to what is really bothering her: namely, diverted traffic she feels she's entitled to because, well, she's been around for awhile and has written some good stuff. While I understand her sentiment, I was surprised she stated it publically because it really wasn't, well, admirable.

In the long run, I think this is actually a positive for the blogosphere as a whole because it represents a willingness to not play patty-cake with other in-group members (other bloggers of similar political stripes). Imagine if the recent Rather/Jennings/Brokaw photo opp actually included some in-group criticism. There would be only one word for it: healthy.

In the short term: buck up, you've been doing great work and your reaction to the aftermath of pen-gate was admirable because you immediately exhibited intellectual honesty by chastising yourself publically over your initial reaction.

That's why I'm coming here, like I said in an earlier comment, "real reporting and a minimum of convenient stances and silences." I go to other websites (like Michelle's quite well-written page for instance) for other reasons.

Not that it should have too much of a bearing on the matter, but before I killed my website it was very much a I'm-no-f'n-journalist blog. Hell, I named it We Are Full of Shit for a reason. So, I'm kinda crossing the aisle on this one.

okay, dude, it's true. probably more, if we go by internet porn rates. just don't ask Bill how much I gave; it'd be embarrassing, and won't leave you hoping for any graft from this megalurker. if only people paid as much attention to my ideas as they do to my money. I only have so much of one, and an infinite well of the other (as Jeff notices, hence the hefty bill).

Hi Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the personal enjoyment and intellectual stimulation provided by your fine work through the last year and commend you for your recent exceptional breakthrough that changed both blogging and journalism, if only by making one aware of the other.

Thanks Jane.

"IMO, Bill acted in accordance with how the bloggers have acted for well over a year and did a decent job. However, after the Rather thing, it appears you guys are being watched pretty closely by bigger people like Drudge for "scoops" without quite understanding the medium for that." - Elric

You might recall, Bill, you and I had a bit of discussion on my post-Rathergate cautionary post from a few weeks back. What Elric is saying is exactly what I was getting at in part of my essay. Scrutiny is going to be a lot closer now. People - some of whom will have an axe to grind from being on the sharp end of a blogdom scrutiny - are going to be looking for missteps.

*shrug* That's a part of the price tag of moving more fully into the journalism end of journaling. That and the hatemails come with the territory.

Heh. No sympathies there bud - you think the MSM figures we lampoon don't get hate mail? Some of it generated as a direct result of our endeavors and lampooning? Sauce for the gander. The hatemail comes with the territory.

What Paul was indulging in, "satirical" or no, was the other end of what I was talking about: there's a great temptation inherent in scoring a coup like Rathergate for some to get bighead and go overboard on the "We be JOURNALISTS now! Woowhee!". Heh.

For me... "thanks, but no thanks" to the "we should reject the title blogger and all reffer to ourselves as freelance peer reviewed journalists now".

I wanted the title "journalist", I wouldn't be opting for "free range pain in the ass". ;) I kinda like being a news aggregator, editorialist, pundit, and commentator. You, Allah, Wiz, Commissar, Laughing Wolf, Powerline, and Cap'n Ed can have the reporters beat - you're good at it, and if it trips your trigger, whohoo: go fer it.

Either way though, Michele is right: things are changing. Not all of the changes are going to be for the better. The influx of money and commercialism will have a corrupting influence: I've seen it in other predominately amateur endeavors. [And yes, blogging is a predominately amateur environment] That alone will draw people in specifically because of the perception there's money involved - wether their perception is accurate or no. The influx of attention and credibility from both media and broader readership will have a changing effect.

Don't believe me? Kewlness, no makey. Let's archive this thread and Michele's post... and look back at them 5 years from now, if we're all still here. And see where things are then.

As far as the "oh no - don't fight!" cautions of some posters... heya, been awhile since we had a good internecine blog war. You and Michele and Allah go hammer and tongs ifn ya'll want. Makes for fun reading. ;)