I'm glad so far that my blogging is still low key and fun. I can count the number of comments I get per week on both hands (and once in a while have to take off a shoe).

My traffic is, oh, in the high teens on a good day and that's fine with me. When it starts becoming work, I quit.

Then again, I never wanted to take on CBS. I don't want to do all the hard, backbreaking research before I post a lengthy essay. Blogging isn't always about news. Hell, I blog about beer. And unless someone is actively hitting my tip jar with amounts containing more than 3 digits total, I ain't planning on putting much more effort into it.

I started reading INDC because of moonbat research as I prefer to laugh than to get depressed. You have loyal readers, Bill, even if we're not that loud or if we get lost in the noise.

You have loyal readers

Oh, I know. It's just been almost a remarkable experience for me to learn about the depth of negativity out there, especially since I know that I was/am part of the cycle. Human beings are combatitive by nature, but sometimes it's a good idea to step back and absorb context.

That's why blogger criticism of the MSM can go too far, because it's a bunch of humans criticizing a fallible system run by humans. Once you start to appreciate that the failings of the MSM are typical expressions of human adaptation and weakness (institutionalized arrogance and ideological bias, etc.), it can be helpful to reform the system that doesn't compensate for or encourages these natural failings.

With respect to blogging, it's remarkable how many people lack the perspective that it's an unpaid endeavor, or that the impersonal distance of the internet doesn't grant one carte blanche to employ nasty or dismissive language.

I don't write that as a victim; I've been a gleeful perpetrator as well. It's just interesting to see how people write and interpret things with alternating vigor and sensitivity. And the exposure to attack amplifies as one's profile increases. To some extent, ignoring the noise becomes a necessary adaptation.

Context, context, context.

Bill, what a great post! I hope that it is widely read.

I think that many of us found our voices in the last six months. Whether it be through blogging, or emailing comments to media, or calling in to talk radio, if a person wanted to speak up, there were certainly very accessible avenues to do it.

But, like a two-year-old who suddenly finds out how to use the word "No!" it will take a little training for the negativity of these voices to tone done.

Hang in there. You're doing a great job.

Hang in there. I read you every day and enjoy your posts. I even registered to tell you this!

Bill,you are on my daily reading list and refresh button get used many times during the day. Keep up the good work and a stiff upper lip....Tom

No need for y'all to pity me; I dish it out. But thanks for reading.

Bill,
That advice is reasonable and comforting initially, but there's a massive difference between blogs and CBS. When I come to your site its like asking a friend,"Hey, what's with this story? or have you heard about that one?" But with the three networks and CNN I would expect factually correct, unfiltered "news." There are millions who don't check the blogs (I know, I know, don't worry, they will) and perhaps only see their local paper so, for them, the networks are their primary news source. Given that, filtering the news to effect a particular political viewpoint is flat dishonesty. And I don't subscribe to the notion that these are simply human fallibilities or unconscious idealogical slip-ups: Evan Thomas, Howell Raines and others flatly state they want a certain outcome--this is not human error, it is patent propagandizing. My criticism can be freely ignored by those in creative endeavors i.e. artists, musicians, and even blogges (God knows, if they followed it I'd be on the phone to Prince right now), but as our country's unofficial news sources, the networks have every right to be criticized and we as well, to have these ctitiques heeded.

You know, I always wondered about that. I assume that people at the level of Sean Hannity or Michael Moore just have to become desensitized to criticism. Otherwise they just couldn't function.

The question is, are they ever open to consider that they might be wrong? Should they?

I've never heard Rush say, "Someone brought X to my attention and I re-thought my position on it."

All this to say, Bill, you f*kin' rock!

Sincerely,

Gordon

T Marcell -

I don't disagree with most of your comment. But ...

1. I don't think that was how Brokaw's comment was intended.

2. The question I'm raising is how human beings that make mistakes and have fundamental biases can absorb and prioritize criticism.

You say they need to listen to critics. Correct. Which critics? How many? Should Brian Williams read 10 blogs? 100? 200? The WaPo? What? Brokaw's statement was conditional and aimed at those that would criticize Williams as a new anchor, IMO.

As for this ...

And I don't subscribe to the notion that these are simply human fallibilities or unconscious idealogical slip-ups: Evan Thomas, Howell Raines and others flatly state they want a certain outcome--this is not human error, it is patent propagandizing.

In the case of CBS and the docs, yes, there was malice. The NYT and Augusta national was certainly a conscious agenda. But as Bernie Goldberg writes about the MSM, part of liberal bias is an institutional isolation and insulation from criticism or opposing viewpoints. This can be unconscious in many cases. Everyone agrees, no one presents an alternate viewpoint, and a certain ideology becomes the norm.

And of course constructive criticism is essential, my point related to my own experience is that once you reach a certain level of attention, it's often hard to sort out the good stuff from the natural, incessant harping that's due every public figure.

I'm not writing anyone a pass.

What's wrong with blogging about beer? :)

-True enough. I don't have to clean out the moonbat crap from the bottom of my inbox like you, unfortunately, have to so you're probably correct.
-Ok, but what would the news sound like if Brian Williams only read Goldstein's blog?
-Update--didn't Wonkette make that same offer? Her MSNBC show will debut next fall as "News from the Nether Eye" featuring a leather-clad Tim Russert.

Bill -- Kings used to venture out occasionally incognito among the great unwashed so as to discover what was really going on, which would otherwise be kept from them by the isolation of their exalted position. Perhaps Dan Rather (and popular bloggers, for that matter) could do the same thing occasionally by setting up a new blog under a cybername, attracting readers in the usual way, and then enjoy reading the comments until the trolls take over!

I think bloggers (even bloggers much larger than myself), get quite enough feedback. No kings here.

In newsrooms, the real input should probably come from paring the critics down to a few trusted sources from outside the typical MSM ideological spectrum, and the hiring of a conservative editor or producer or three to haggle over the choice and execution of stories.

That's really the solution to the most outrageous problems of bias, but first the MSM has to acknowledge the the need for change.

While I agree that Rather and Jennings have to take ten times the BS that bloggers do, and it can develop into an institutionalized manner of thinking, I disagree that members of the MSM should be given any slack in that regard. You have to deal with proportionately fewer nattering nabobs of negativity, but you don't have "layers" of protection from any mistakes you might make. Blogging is not an industry, journalism is. I expect "journalists" such as Rather, Jennings, and now Williams to sit there and take the obscene amount of verbal abuse becuase they are well compensated for it, and its their job. Its what they do. Its not like its a surprise, something that Williams is just finding out about. For $8 million a year, he better just grin and bear it. Journalists in the MSM have ludicrous amounts of money and resources to keep them from screwing up, yet they still manage rather nicely. With the kind of money and compensation involved, I expect professionalism in spite of the volume of the nattering nabobs of negativity. When you start making $8 million a year, Bill, I will have much higher expectations of you. :)

Archangel -

Very good points.

Another point is that I fear that they can't distinguish the relevance of criticism because of the volume of bs. If I turn off to some degree as a blogger, it's almost understandable why Rather issued paranoid soundbytes about "partisan political operatives" after 24 years of taking heat. (This ignores that fact that many of Rather's attackers were right)

Doesn't excuse it, but it's interesting to think about, no?

Brokaw's advice also struck me as being relevant to people that will take shots at Williams for "not being as good" as Brokaw, or issuing negative reviews of his delivery or editing. To some extent you have to believe in yourself and keep chugging, and that struck me as the impetus behind his comment.

Having no concern for legit criticisms of ideological bias was the prism that defined blogger reaction to Brokaw's comment. (understandably)

Right there with you, brother. I don't get your traffic (yet!) but the trollery has got me down. The next time I am offered feedback - especially from someone who likes my blog * but * - I will am sore tempted to tell them where they can stick it.

- Bill - I'm echoing some of the earlier comments from newer Bloggers and Bloggettes. In my case the rude awakening came on the very first comment of the very first post where I was immediately upbraided for calling myself an Independent while showing an extremely conservative bent. And while I agree with the tone and meaning of your post I see yet another aspect to it all. This is the first media venue where you get almost instant feedback.... at least at times... and its decidedly very up close and personal. Thats entirely missing in every other form of public discourse that I can think of. And as a practical matter....

- Rather, and many of his peers in supporting him, didn't react like I think he/they might have if he had the slightest notion of how fast and real time the net works. That in no way deflects his duplicity. I just think that people are unawares of the differences in what we/they have to deal with in this cyber sand box...

- All that said, Brokaws comment is still timely and spot on, even if he doesn't really understand the new twists of Blogcasting....

Rather, and many of his peers in supporting him, didn't react like I think he/they might have if he had the slightest notion of how fast and real time the net works.

I made this exact point to an interviewer the other day. They couldn't keep up. This was a key component to understanding how Rathergate shook out.

Bill,

You might have more luck taking up a $1 million to PREVENT the display of your daily, nude whipping on national TV.

Just a thought.

BTW, Bill -- you are one of the most considerate and gracious responders to non-trolls in the blog business.

- I notice that for the most part the only people who whine about registering are the very trolls its designed to eliminate... From that standpoint alone I value it highly right up next to Islamic profiling at all transportation screening points... Lets curb any growing fad toward nude blogging...pajama's was bad enough... try it nude and they'll come and take my computer and burn down my house.....

Readers? What are those? I've been at this for seven months and the only readers I got were the ones who came over from National Review on Bastille Day when I put together a compendium of Jonah Goldberg's "F--- the French" columns from previous years. Yeah, the post is still in my archives, just like my pride. . .

Actually the hobby is fun, but I wouldn't want to see Bill naked, whips or not, for any money. Maybe you should have a "Help Bill Keep His Gawddam Clothes On and Not Disgust Us" tip jar.

You aren't inching towrd quitting I hope!

I read daily but seldom comment. How flattering can it be to read another comment that amounts to 'me, too'? I don't know that that would counter the nasty attacks anyway. I do feel obliged to say that I've enjoyed reading your posts because of the thought and research put into them. Whether I agree with the position taken in a particular post is less important to me than the reasoning. For every nasty, negative response you get there are probably alot more readers like me that enjoy having the gray matter stimulated. I should say thank you more often than I have, so thank you. Hope you discover a method for coping with the nattering nabobs of negativity other than giving up blogging. (Did I just date myself?)

- I remember back during the heat of the moment during the early hours of RatherGate.... watching some of the intense back and forth with the occassional intersecting of panicky moonblogs, who every bit as much as anyone saw the hand writing on the wall early... I learned a lot during that episode just in the natural ebb and flow of a "star wars" stage in the blogging landscape.....

- And Retread....don't knock self-dating....thats pretty much the only dates some of us ever get.....

It was the tidal wave of criticism that played a large role in driving away U.S.S. Clueless (Steven Den Beste), so you're not the first to have experienced this.

And it's not just the nasty e-mails that can have an effect. I closed commenting on my site because spammers decided that a place that gets on average 24 visits a day (almost all from robots) was worth pasting over with come-ons for offshore crooked casinos.

Recently, some Russian mp3 site decided to register 32 times as members, and I had to spend an hour on dial-up deleting them, and installing a patch to keep him away.

As for Brokaw's advice, it's applicable only if his successor already knows the difference between reporting the news and manufacturing it. Rather didn't, and he was righteously whacked for it.

Hunter, I'm right there with you on the dates thing (g). But just for fun, do you know whose quote I ripped off? (Yes, this is a chance for you to date yourself.)

That would the jolly red nosed guy who said : ..."Annnyy kid that doesn't drink is no kid of m-i-i-n-n-e"....

- THE Mr. W.C. hisself

Bill:

If Brokaw said "You don't write for the critics, you write for the audience" that'd be one thing - an admonition to not make winning plaudits from the critics the object of your writing is sensible.

With Brokaw, though, the audience reading the comments is supplying its own context, namely, that he's telling Williams (or whomever) that he need not even concern himself with the question of whether he's being fair because the numbnuts who say there's a liberal bias are unibrowed morons who marry blood relatives.

There's a world of difference between not letting the critics drive your writing, etc. and automatically discounting any criticism as uninformed.

Only the truly arrogant do the latter.

Hunter,

Sorry, wrong answer. It was written by Safire, in 1970, when he was a speech writer for Spiro Agnew. Spiro who? Nixon's VP who quit when he got caught accepting an offering from the bagman. Agnew failed to learn that politics in the nation's capital require a bit more discretion than politics in Maryland.

W.C. said, "A child should be place in a stout, oaken cask, with holes through which to pass food and water. And then, when the child is 18 years of age, the holes should be tightly sealed."

The biggest difference betwen bloggers and network news that renders your empathy a little, er, over-generous, is that they have staffs full of people giving them advice. Brokaw himself wasn't reading criticisms sent his way - he had people doing that for him, whose job it was to potentially flag legitimate criticisms. And if he didn't, he should have, and maybe that was the problem. You and most bloggers are one man operations. You can't deal with mountains of commentary, unless you have no life outside of blogging. Network news folks don't have that excuse. It is their life, their career, and they have plenty of people supporting them in that. The excuse that works for a blogger does not work nearly as well for them.

Good Grief!! My Typekey is actually working!
Well Bill, now you’ve got rid of the trolls I guess you’re ready for some real, hard-hitting criticism. We’ll leave aside your failure to link to me often enough as being just one of those frailties of youth, your incredible lack of recent Moonbat research, well, everyone can have their off days but off months? This silly idea you have of writing something coherent, lucid even, I mean are you quite certain that you really read the handbook on blogging? Why no nano-technology? Space? I mean, you haven’t either endorsed Vaclav Havel for UN Sec Gen nor compared Oliver Willis to some grotesque food combination!! Are you sure you inhabit the same blogosphere as the rest of us? Where are the Space Unicorns? Why are you not on the WSJ op-ed page already?
Sigh, this idea of yours, lucidity, no spolling errers, only speaking up when you have something to say, demanding from suppliers what they promised before making payment, these art critic jokes that are insufficiently condescending...in all, this seeming attempt to act like an adult...y’know, I’m just not certain it’s going to catch on. Three quarters of a million visits so far might look good but you really are letting the side down you know. Really, you are,think, just what will happen to the MSM if they find out that a blogger is not in fact a puerile fantasist? Their entire world-view will crumble. Sorry, you’re going to have to get with the program. More inanity, more savage denunciations and, of course, more Moonbat posts.

Hmmm, that's too bad.

3/4 of a million? Betwee sitemeter and pre-sitemeter, it's like 1.5 million.

Moonbat post is a month late, but I just don't have the mojo to finish it.

I vote for term limits. run the rascals out before they start to spoil and stink up the place. for newscasters, that is. and bloggers. especially that kos guy, and willis too. and I saw Wonke SWWNBNOL holding court on some news channel last night. sheesh. it was beyond lame. I think the crowd was hoping for some washingtoniene stories or some other typical wonkrap like that.

hmmmmm... something not quite right about proposal... must think about it a minute...

oh yeah, and those purple barney folks and their sesame-street attempt at dry socio-political humor. fafblog. that's it, fafblog. I think I'll go see what they're up to.

Well, OK, you got me. I just read sitemeter. So, where do I send mojo? How is it packaged?

Bill, I agree with Gordon: You rock. You also have very high standards for yourself and your work, and they were firmly in place before Rathergate and before the million hits. From the trolls, to the blog police, to the self-rightous right, they do seem to go after you more than most. I've never understood it but I think its your talent. While just saying "screw 'em" is my only advice, its not that easy to do. I recently discovered some (republican) yoyo with an ongoing "I Hate Jane" campaign (?!)and its not that easy to blow off. All I can say is keep following your own compass-it hasn't let you down yet.

The e-mail criticism was particularly unpleasant and relentless, and I personally learned the lesson that raising your profile always marks you as a target to someone, somewhere. And the biggest problem with being a target usually isn't the fact that people criticize or disagree with you - it's the way they do it: hatefully; with withering condescension; with wildly dissonant interpretation of your efforts; every single day.

I could (and should) write a book about this, Bill. If I did, maybe I could quit my day job.

I don't comment often - because most of what I have to say has usually been said by others before I get here. But, I have to add some personal-experience perspective here, having dealt with thousands of daily posts for a long time on a large website. I became the primary target because as gatekeeper, my job was keeping the site clear of spammers, fools and raving, rude idiots. Registering to post doesn’t keep them off, as you probably know... only blocking them in multiple ways does. But, I digress...

The most difficult part of the job was getting people to understand that there are rules to live by - and that they have no ‘freedom of speech’ on a private website*. The analogy used was the homeowner. He has a right to determine who he invites into his home - who he will allow to speak before his children, wife and friends within. He also has the right, after invitation - to throw out the invited, if that person violates rules of civility.

If someone has become unwelcome by being a boor, and goes down the street and starts telling others that the problem was your lacking of tolerance, diversity and suppression of freedom of speech, you don’t change your rules or back down because they lie about you. You ignore their whinny criticism and vow to use more discrimination, not less.

The last thing you do is let someone in a similar but larger arena attempt to sully your principles by holding their false ones up as a higher standard. Point is, Brokaw is no worthy saint - he would cut the throat of conservative effort in a heartbeat if he could (figuratively of course.) He spins... and misses the point altogether in his ‘compact [is] with the audience’ advice. Sorry, the primary media compact is with the truth, and Brokaw damned well knows it - but won’t honor it any more than other leftist media will as a relentless socialist agenda is pursued.

*Blogs are public - in that anyone can haul up the URL in a browser and read posts - but commentary sections on blogs can, and should be restricted - primarily because the world contains too many irrational and ugly people who don’t value civil discourse based on longstanding historic morality and virtue. All that many of these people can manage is four-letter gutter language to describe what they think of you, saying in effect, they hate your ideas, logic and adherence to long merited principles. Mostly they hate rules and established morality - and the fact they don’t have the ability to create their own popular soap-box. So, they want to stand on yours - and whine that it isn’t their right to do so.

Bill, I never miss a single day without coming here at least three or four times a day to view your fine efforts. If that effort requires more use of the ‘out of my house’ button - use it with a clear conscience.

Gee guess I have been chicken for a long time heh

I get maybe 20 people a day and my comments have been registration required since nearly Febuary

Bill you do a awesome job, I love reading. I don't post a lot just for the reasons you listed. I figure you have enough crap to sort thru. God knows I do.

Its amazing how few people realise we don't get paid for this work. That we do it because we like it or because we feel someone needs to help make a change.

keep the hard fight!!

One thing I know as a blogger, you can't hear this sort of stuff too often:

You're doing a great job Bill, I love your stuff. Keep up the great work, and thanks for all the laughs.

Illegitimi non carborundum

One reason I think you see Brokaw's comment differently than many bloggers will is the very nature of your site. You're actually journalistic, in that you investigate and interview, as well as comment. Most bloggers just comment on the news, try to find some hidden news item and expose it, or pass on rants or comments on whatever subject, myself included. With Rathergate, you helped create the news. That's a whole new ballgame. I can only assume that it changes your perspective, and probably changes the nature of the comments you receive. Perhaps it also means that you are more careful about what you write than the average blogger.

I raised your ire once for an update post I didn't intend as a "potshot" or anything close to it. Let's hope you believe in mulligans, we all need them from time to time.

Keep up the good work

You would pay a cool mil for a whuppin?! Sicko.