Steven Levy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6098633/site/newsweek

The above links to an article by Steven Levy that shows much of what is wrong with the MSM. It is an attack on bloggers, and civic blogging in general. Read the whole thing, if you find it funny when people parody themselves without knowing.

Here are some highlights of the absurd incompetence:

While bloggers have been true to their promise to "fact-check Big
Media's a--," their motives are often fiercely partisan.

Excuse me, but Glenn Reynolds grows more and more influential because of the vacuum created by the fierce (liberal) partisanship of the MSM.

And when it comes to hammering away on a noisy subject that ultimately
distracts from more important issues, the Blogosphere can make cable television
look like a 1950s debating society.

Levy cannot see that Bloggers stop the MSM from framing the debate to fit the MSM's partisan (liberal) politics. Would Levy prefer that we talk about health care or the environment, rather than whether or not Kerry was in Cambodia? What a surprise. This worked for Bill Clinton in 1992. The MSM decided CHARACTER was not an issue. It was "The economy, stupid." But to many people this time around character is THE issue, and the fact that Kerry has so infamously lied about his trip to Cambodia says something about his character. (The fact that the MSM still tries to cover up Kerry's obvious Christmas in Cambodia lie just shows how damaging it is to Kerry).

In the blog world, people gravitate toward subjects that generate
traffic," says Gillmor. "The more raucous you are, the more page views you get."

Gillmor is wrong. If the more "raucous" (what a nicely ambiguous adjective Gillmor chooses) websites attraced more viewers, pro-Nazi and pro-Stalinist blogs would do the most business. The fact is that bloggers get noticed by writing something that hasn't been said, or said as well, or said enough, that is TRUE. Bloggers get popular by getting word of mouth advertising from other, more influential bloggers. The more influential bloggers got that way by building trust with their viewers. Compare this to the NYTimes, which is coasting along on a reputation built by previous generations.

Also, while Big Media must answer for any missteps or favoritisms,
bloggers seldom do.

This is the funniest part of Levy's entrie article. Without bloggers big media would NOT have answered for RatherGate, and btw, has Rather been fired? No? How about Mapes? No?!? Has the AP answered for lying about Republicans booing when W wished Clinton well before Clinton's bypass surgery? NO?!?
Bloggers would leave Glenn Reynolds in droves if he pulled either of the above stunts, or anything like them. Bloggers have gained in influence precisely because Big Media does NOT answer for such mistakes, unless bloggers force them to.
Levy's article is the best proof of that.

Let's jump right in.

9.24.04

Althouse http://althouse.blogspot.com/ shares a theory that Kerry sounds hesitant because he doesn't believe in what he is saying. That the ideas aren't his, so listeners can sense his insincerity.

This might be part of it, but I think it has more to do with him being generally insecure. Kery is like a sober man asking a woman to dance, a son speaking to a strict father, or a student trying to impress a teacher. He is constantly hearing himself, criticizing himself as he speaks, so he backtracks, hesitates, refuses to take a position, and generally comes off as weak and insincere. Of course Kerry is what he is, a political opportunist without a guiding philosophy. As such he has the same problem as the three men above- he doesn't care about what he is saying, he only cares about whether or not what he is saying will make a listener like him.

I can almost feel sorry for Kerry because I have been rejected by women for being too timid, am almost a stranger to my father because I can't be myself around him, and have acted the fool in class because I could not express my thoughts due to nerves. But you don't give sympathy votes to presidential candidates (at least not post 9/11).

Contrast this to a drunk man asking a woman to dance. He is aggressive and confident. His mind is not divided between speaking, hearing himself speak, and analyzing what he has said, all at the same time. He smiles, he gets his point across, his entrie demeanor entices. Bush has all the advantages of the drunk, (this is an unfortunate metaphor, lol) because he has the advantage of a guiding philosophy that informs his words and presentation. He doesn't need reassurance from a listener, he is self-assured.

This may be especially important to female voters. Women may be voting for Bush more than Kerry not only because he is strong on defense, though this is the popular explanation, but because, like Clinton, Bush is confident, even a little cocky. Kerry, and the liberals who complain about Bush's swagger, are playing the role of the nerd in the corner, mad because the "cocky jerk" gets the girl. He wasn't a jerk, he just didn't need a girl to hold his hand and tell him he was okay every thirty seconds.

Update:
The Daily Recycler http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/
(read the whole thing, lots of good stuff) took the time (and trouble to block the gag reflex) necessary to count how many times Kerry licked his lips during his time on Letterman. 94!!! Did John Kerry's new Clinton-flunky marriages make him drop Extasy to help him relax under pressure? Hmm....