Just as my faith in newspapers is on its deathbed, the New York Times manages to pump new lead life into it. They have tracked down our very own Scott Shields and identified his threat to our safety - or at least our blogginess. Or something.
The op-ed by K. Daniel Glover starts off with: THE Netroots." "People Power." "Crashing the Gate." The lingo of liberal Web bloggers bespeaks contempt for the political establishment. The same disdain is apparent among many bloggers on the right, who argued passionately for a change in the slate of House Republican leaders - and who wallowed in woe-is-the-party pity when the establishment ignored them.
You might think that with the kind of rhetoric bloggers regularly muster against politicians, they would never work for them. But you would be wrong.
"Lingo"? Hey, I'm from Texas and I don't use that word. Join me below the fold and I'll look at why Scott Shields is no threat to blogs, the political establishment, or our freedom - but possibly IS a threat to K. Daniel Glover. |
| The problem with equating a stance for "people power" with being "anti-politician" is that it makes the fatal mistake of assuming (and we all know what happens when someone ass-u-me(s), don't we?) that what we really want is direct democracy. I'm sorry, but I haven't heard ANY blogger of ANY kind saying that we should scrap our Constition and implement street-mob French-First-Republic style mob-ocracy. What I have heard is a lot of people (bloggers are, after all, people) who are dissatisfied with the status quo. Since the majority of us begin life on the outside of whatever "The Establishment" is, we look at it as our first job to crack that inner-circle so our ideas can be heard by someone who can do something about it - like an elected Representative.
Also - bloggers who write about a specific races are engaging what is best described as "guerilla campaigning" on a voluntary basis. "Guerilla" because it isn't sanctioned or approved by the candidate or campaign at all. "Campaigning" because it is unabashedly attempting to get a specific person in office. "Voluntary" because it is unpaid. Why is it a leap of faith to imagine someone who cares enough about getting someone elected, who is good enough to gain attention for it, and who cares enough to do it on a regular basis would oppose turning that "voluntary" part of their job description into "professional"? If I was a model railroad hobbiest who built such fantastic model railroads that Tyco asked me to work for them, should anyone be surprised if I said, "Okay - but only if it's a lot of money."
Glover continues: Over the past few years, bloggers have won millions of fans by speaking truth to power - even the powers in their own parties - and presenting a fresh, outsider perspective. They are the pamphleteers of the 21st century, revolutionary "citizen journalists" motivated by personal idealism and an unwavering confidence that they can reform American politics.
Well, I can't say that I have "millions of fans" personally, but I would venture to say a few thousand people have read the things I've written - and most of it has been well-received. Even things people disagree with are usually met with respect and honesty - though there are a few notable exceptions (and to be fair, I'm not always nice to people who disagree - I'm up-front about being in the arguing business to win, not to make friends).
Personally, I hate the "citizen journalist" stuff. I'm not a journalist, paid or unpaid. I don't do "news stories". When you read my writing, you get my opinion. The problem with journalism in this country is that there isn't enough of it and there are way too many people passing off opinion as journalism. I won't be another.
Glover should also check his facts - the pamphleteers of earlier times were also part of the establishment. Both The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers were written by men who actually created the inner-circles of power in their time. Of course, Thomas Paine actually worked for the Continental Congress until his looseness with details of secret negotiations with France made it necessary to drop him from the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Also, the thing about reforming politics - it's true. Most of us want to reform politics. Which pretty much means that you have to deal with politicians - or just stand around outside and yell at a brick wall. If you want to clean the pond, you gotta get wet. If you want to reform politics, you have to deal with politicians.
So what does this have to do with Scott Shields? He's cited as one of the bloggers who inexplicably accepted money for sharing his knowledge of and skills at blogging. Now if Scott had hidden the fact that he worked for Menendez (instead of beginning the post with "This is an incredibly exciting week for all of us here at the Menendez campaign.") or if he had suddenly changed his tune about the Senator - then Glover would have something over which to whine. But if someone is going to complain about a person passing along info for someone they work for, then I think they need to start with FOX News. Then they can move along to NBC, CBS, ABC and the rest.
But to do that, Glover would need to point first and foremost at himself. You see, all this talk about bloggers horning in on "The Establishment" and working for the filthy politicians they write about - well, that's what Glover does, too. He works for the National Journal - which publishes such "Establishment" insider reports as "The Hotline" and "Congress Daily". Guess what hobby/emerging profession could threaten such insider-rags?
Um, blogging?
If I had to pick the thesis of Mr. Glover's op-ed (something I advise my students to always do), I'd say it's something along the lines of "Bloggers are getting paid and I don't like it." Which means that Mr. Glover probably won't like me much longer as I've agreed to begin blogging for my Congressperson, Mr. Steve Rothman. When I actually get started, I'll post a notice here at Blue Jersey on the off chance that Mr. Glover reads our little slice of the internets tubes. Then he'll know that I'm as big a threat to everyone and everything as Scott Shields ever was.
I sure am glad we liberals have the New York Times around to slant the news our way. Aren't you, Scott? |
