« "The 'Media Party' is Over" | Main | A Startling Conclusion (UPDATED) »

I wholeheartedly agree with Charles Johnson's analysis of the Thornburgh/Boccardi report of Rathergate. The investigative panel stole much of the thunder of critics by laying out the damning particulars of CBS's misdeeds in good detail, followed by the issuance of bizarre non-conclusions that creak precariously under a mountain of conclusive evidence. The practical effect of the panel's report and CBS's resultant firings is to suck much of the outrage out of the scenario by denying it the requisite spark and fuel: outright obfuscation and egregious lack of accountability. The long delay of its release and the election win have also thrown quite a bit of cold water on the blogosphere's reaction.

During and after my appearance on the Hugh Hewitt show, Hugh seemed downright cagey in his frustration with the measured response of the blogosphere. It was pretty clear that he was trying to cajole me (us; bloggers) to suit up with a fresh set of angry chainmail and deadly weapons in preparation for another 18-hour-a-day cage match with CBS and its abettors over the report's results. Some of my favorite snippets from Hugh, many of them questions to Reynolds in the following segment (paraphrased):

"What are your next steps?"

"Why are the bloggers being bought off by CBS?"

"Do you think that a new generation of smaller bloggers will rise up to to shoulder the responsibility and make a name for themselves?"

"Who will be the INDC Journal of this part of the story?"

"Is the Heisenberg Principle in effect?"

His analogy about the Heisenberg Principle basically relies on the description that "that which is being observed changes just by being observed." The implication seems to be that now that well-known bloggers have made a name for themselves and often carry practical influence and audiences, they've measured their responses to the report in some sort of market-driven bid to take care around the demands of whoever is "observ[ing]" them - observers that hold some sway, I suppose. I greatly respect Hugh's work on many fronts, but this inference and metaphor is silly, because playing nice while "being observed" never entered my mind and has an payoff that escapes me. The seemingly measured response to the report was simply ... a thoughtful, measured response.

In addition, Hugh failed to answer my question about a practical goal. What exactly is the desired outcome of the "INDC Journal of this part of the story['s]" mounted charge? And what are the practical methods, beyond analyzing and highlighting the inconsistencies in the report and voicing anger? Yes, open source punditry and analysis of secondary sources are growing in power and influence, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Blogs have been incessantly analyzing and screaming into the void about bias and inaccuracy for years, and most of the noise has been impotent. Why? And why was Rathergate so different?

Many factors contributed to the story's power (i.e. a politically charged pre-election media environment), but two intertwined factors made the crucial difference:

The requisite opportunity. Massive political energy was created by the presence of tangible evidence that could actually prove the blogospheric charges.

Since Hugh likes scientific allusions, we'll call it the "Killian Principle." And what kept the gas on the fire?

The efforts by bloggers to use investigative methods beyond cliched, secondary analysis in order to gather primary, compelling information about the story, thus baiting the interest of the MSM to attack the diseased member in its midst.

In short, bloggers introducing new, compelling information that attracts the interest of major publications and tv media by generating a steady IV drip of novel tension is what helps keep a story alive. Primary research. Picking up the telephone. For lack of a better name, I'll dub it the "Ardolino Principle."

So let's conduct a practical situation report.

1. The Killian Principle's power (tangible evidence) was sucked out of our present scenario because Thornburgh/Boccardi did a rather exhaustive job gathering facts that actually prove the case we'd like to make: political motivation, the fact that the documents are fake and collusion with the Kerry Campaign. From Mapes' released e-mails about "Get[ting] Bush," to the definitive forgery analysis of Peter Tytell, enough information already exists to make the case, but the panel's ostensibly "independent" but wussified and dissonant non-conclusions succeeded in sapping the will of an already half-disinterested mainstream media to press the issue. The blogosphere does not yet, and will likely never, have an exclusive audience large enough to effect real change without a bandwagon jump and cooperative effort with elements of the mainstream media. For every Powerline, you need a Howard Kurtz. Howard Kurtz isn't on board with blogs to carry waves of outrage to practical effect.

2. Fulfilling the unseriously named "Ardolino Principle" (continued introduction of novel, primary information) is even more daunting. In the initial phase of Rathergate, documents were easily proved fraudulent. In my case, all I did was make a few phone calls and conduct an interview to a non-hostile source. Outlets that rose to lie and distort information (the Boston Globe comes to mind), were easily slapped down by reinterviewing their sources and getting contradictory sound bites, again with politically non-hostile individuals. But at this point, to really move the story, what new, raw, compelling information and evidence can be gathered that will capture imaginations and marshal outraged, real results? Not much, besides real investigative work that cultivates sources to determine the real origin of the documents, as well as plumbs the depths of CBS's collusion with the Kerry Campaign. Such an effort requires time, effort and the willingness and ability to exercise no small amount of charm and guile with sources that are inherently hostile to a rightie blogger. The typical rote, if compelling, analysis and opining by bloggers will not suffice to move mountains. And the "time" requirement for investigation is difficult, as most of us do have jobs and all.

In short? Barring some superstar's introduction of new evidence via outstanding gumshoe work (and many of my more ambitious non-published efforts met with total failure during the height of the scandal), it's not practically efficacious to mount an outraged charge of Blackrock, if the goal is further accountability via pressure on CBS. So my advice to Hugh and the blogosphere is this: you say you want (another) revolution? Or at least want to squeeze that last 15% out of the one that took place in September? I suggest you define practical political goals for your efforts, and then incite hungry bloggers to carry out the practical means to accomplish them, which will require time, resources and initiative. Opining into the void is a crucial part of the equation, but it's insufficient to achieve further objectives.

And while attempting these goals carries the possibility of success, there are no guaranteed outcomes in investigative journalism. Unless your last name is Rather or Mapes, that is.

Good luck. I'll be sipping rum runners from the heights of complacency and riches bred by my wildly rewarding blogging stardom. Or perhaps I'll just take a nap.

Posted by Bill at January 12, 2005 02:04 PM | TrackBack (1)

Comments

Posted by: bsp at January 12, 2005 02:48 PM

Posted by: jmaster at January 12, 2005 03:08 PM

Posted by: bsp at January 12, 2005 03:39 PM

Posted by: erp at January 12, 2005 03:39 PM

Posted by: Marty5220 at January 12, 2005 03:46 PM

Posted by: John from WuzzaDem at January 12, 2005 04:38 PM

Posted by: Baron Bodissey at January 12, 2005 04:45 PM

Posted by: Bill from INDC at January 12, 2005 04:46 PM