Log in
2012 May 21 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/08/31/the-ridicilous-nature-of-the-blogosphere/
0
0

The partisan nature of the blogosphere is taking on forms I never thought it would; serious, well respected, well read bloggers are making complete and utter fools of themselves.

Case in point, the blogger who wrote that McCain’s decision to ask Sarah Palin to become his running mate is “the most irresponsible decision by any leading presidential candidate since Bush picked Quayle.”

The name of the blogger: Andrew Sullivan.

Why is choosing Palin so irresponsible, you ask? Simple. According to Andrew – and many others on the far-left who support Barack Obama with a passion seldom seen before; I mention him because his post is a great example of this behavior, not because he’s the only one displaying it – Palin is, quite simply, too inexperienced to be a good Vice President.

That is right. The man supports the Democratic candidate for the presidency who has virtually no experience, either in business or politics, but complains about Palin, who, in the end, is a governor.

Of course, the main problem Andrew has with Palin is that she is an opponent of gay marriage. Every single person who opposes this is, according to the great ‘Drew, a horrible, evil person, capable of killing little children and eating their bodies afterwards for dinner. Or breakfast.

It is all a sign of the extreme nature of the blogosphere. These elections are insane. Many other bloggers have told me, some of them working for this website, they do not enjoy writing about these elections because readers and other bloggers are going completely insane. Earlier today, for instance, a longtime reader said he would not visit PoliGazette anymore because we do not burn down Palin but, instead, ‘defend’ her (whatever that means).

Obviously this is a serious problem; one that will force blogs and bloggers to rethink what they are doing. Do they want to be partisan hacks or do they want to be citizen journalists. This blog has already decided to be the latter, not the former. You will see many changes in the coming weeks and months that reflect this decision. It will include linking less to partisan bloggers, doing more original reporting, and a redesign of the website with lots of extras. Of course this also means the articles will be less opinionated, but more (objective) analysis, summaries and reports. Opinions will most certainly not disappear, but they will be less partisan than at other ‘blog-like sites.’

Other blogs and bloggers will have to decide what they want to do themselves. Their decision, however, will reflect on the blogosphere as a whole, change it either for the better or the worse. It will also result in people taking the blogosphere either more or less serious when it comes to reporting and analysis. If the blogosphere as a whole will be seen as a partisan mess, this will reflect badly on most other blogs as well.

Luckily, PoliGazette already pretends to be more of an online magazine, and the changes in the coming months will make it into a real online magazine. The blog will be part of this magazine, but we will offer much more, and partisanship as such will not be visible, not for the blog as a whole at least.

Andrew and others like him should keep in mind that what they are doing reflects on others as well. Not just on themselves.

  1. Posted by phin
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #65803 ›
    phin Michael, this is why I keep coming here, even though I may disagree with you or some of the others here profoundly.  You (the website as a whole) try to be intellectually honest and fair, regardless of political and philosophical leanings.  That is increasingly rare and becomes swallowed up, in an end justifies the means way, for the sale of nasty partisan hackery.  I don't know if you'll survive in the direction you're heading, but I'm rooting for you guys.  You know, I loved Clinton (and still do; don't ask me why...).  I was going for Gore in 2000.  I was devastated when he lost, but after about a year, decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.  Today, in retrospect, I'm glad he won and I was rooting for him in '04, mostly because of the incompetence of Kerry's candidature (which given how weak a candidate Bush was seems all the more remarkable).  Bush's biggest liability IMO, was ironically enough,  the fact that his party controlled Congress for 6 of his 8 years, thus allowing his and his party's worst impulses to remain virtually unchalanged.  This, I must confess, is my biggest worry about Obama and why I think he's the liberal version of Bush '00.  It's why I'm hoping McCain wins (that and I think most of Obama's ideas are doomed to failure).  But if Obama wins, he gets the benefit of the doubt from me for a good long while.  I don't know what that makes me, but I think I have far more in common with the overwhelming majority of average Americans (or Canadians for that matter) from either the center-right or the center-left than the hardcore partisans of either side. As for Sullivan, he has become a complete and utter insufferable and fantastically nasty self-parody, it's not even funny anymore.  He used to be a must read for me.  Now, he disgusts me so much it's unbelievable.  I cringe most of the time I read his nonsense.  The "know hope" crap most of all.  If I were Obama, he's the kinda loon that would scare me the most, because once he turns on his Messiah (and he WILL turn on him given his fickle nature) when Andrew will inevitably be "dissapointed" with his savior, it's gonna get very nasty (see exhibit Bush).  And frankly, the so-called "The Moderate Voice" is heading down that road as well.  You should read the nasty hit-pieces on Palin, especially one today from Stickings.  My jaw just dropped...
  2. Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief Phin; I think you do not need to worry about our future, although I appreciate you caring about it. The direction we're heading is, I think, the right one for us for a variety of reasons. One of them is that most of those working for this website want to become more like an online magazine and less like a blog. Another one is that this will distinguish us considerably from most other political sites, which is a good thing. I agree with your assessment of Obama and, I've got to say, I also worry about the Democrats possibly controlling two branches of government. If they control both congress and the white house, it is likely that they will make a caricature out of Republicans and push through silly plans that help nobody. Andrew; sadly, you're right. But he's not alone. Many are like him. The only difference between him and them, though, is that far more people (used to) read him than most of the others.
  3. Posted by John Rohan
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #65814 ›
    John Rohan Glad to see one blog with a little sanity. She may not be the best qualified person for the job, but the attacks on Palin are out of hand and could end up backfiring on the Dems. What's funny is that Andrew Sullivan still describes himself as a "conservative" even though he's supported nothing but Democratic candidates in the last several elections and worships the ground Obama walks on. He also blogs first and foremost about US politics when he isn't even a US citizen.
  4. Michael Merritt
    He also blogs first and foremost about US politics when he isn’t even a US citizen.
    Might want to watch what you're saying when our Editor-in-Chief is a Dutchman! Some of the turn in the blogosphere is pretty sad, I will agree.  I still like to read Andrew, but once Obama snatched the nomination, his turn came pretty quickly.  As late as July even, some semblance of fairness came into play, and it even peeked its head over the past couple days, but the nature of his blog has definitely changed. The problem is that I think many blogs are judged by those who write in them most and by what those people are writing about.  Thus, Michael often gets labeled a far-right-winger because of his hawkish foreign policy views.  Yet, even I disagreed with his immigration post the other day, and I am not hawkish on the war.  I think that if I wrote mostly about immigration in the U.S., I too would be labeled as being with the loons on the far-right, too. As for TMV, there are a lot of people who write there who are definitely lefties.  Yet, I think their lead man Joe Gandelman at least tries to be fair.  And along with him, I know at least one or two other people there who've been/were life-long Republicans.
  5. Trackback | Link #65845 ›
    The Shield of Achilles "Go-go boots", "Babe", "dumb", child is a "geneti... Continuing my run-down of Gov Palin coverage, the above are just a few of the choice adjectives in the media/blogosphere...
  6. Posted by John Rohan
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #65878 ›
    John Rohan Michael Merrit said: Might want to watch what you’re saying when our Editor-in-Chief is a Dutchman! OK, but there are a few differences: 1) Poligazette doesn't write exclusively about US politics and gay marriage (which are 90% of Sullivan's topics) 2) Poligazette has several contributors from different countries  I don't always agree with Mr. Van Der Galien, but he's a bit more open-minded than Andrew Sullivan, especially now.
1