Yesterday, Jed Lewison had a piece over at Daily Kos that was a rebuttal of sorts to a piece by Hendrick Hertzberg in The New Yorker. Lewison was mainly concerned to defend Markos Moulitsas’ honor, as Hertzberg had criticized him for excessive purity on the health care bill. I don’t care about that debate at all. What I do care about is something that Lewison wrote as part of his defense.
Ah, so Hertzberg believes that progressives (especially members of what he calls “the Internet cohort”) are impugning President Obama’s motives. He singles out a weeks-old tweet in which Markos slammed the Senate health care bill as a “monstrosity” that should be killed. To Hertzberg, this is an example of “nonsense,” but such a glib proclamation overlooks the fact that when Markos made his statement, the final Senate bill was still being negotiated, and progressive pushback likely made it stronger than it otherwise would have been.
Certainly, progressives could have shouted from the rooftops about how great the bill was, but who can forget what happened when we jumped on board the Medicare buy-in compromise? Didn’t go so well, did it? At least this time, Ben Nelson was unsuccessful in his efforts to reduce subsidies, the loophole allowing insurers to cap annual benefits was eliminated, Bernie Sanders’ Community Health Centers were funded, and a loophole allowing national plans to sidestep state regulations was closed.
Would those things have happened without progressive pressure? Perhaps, but the notion that progressives made the bill worse is implausible.
Implicit in Lewison’s defense is that Markos didn’t necessarily mean it when he called for the monstrous Senate bill to be killed. What Markos was doing was a negotiating ploy, not a sincere assessment of what he thought ought to be done. I don’t know that that was the actually the case. But let us say that it was the case. What does it do for you the reader to have to wonder whether the bloggers you are reading are giving you an honest piece of analysis or they are trying to outrage you or mobilize you or to push some agenda?
Most progressive bloggers are also activists, and some are even organizers. Many of them raise money for candidates (as I have in the past). But they are also writers who offer analysis and interpretation of the political landscape. These are two hats that cannot be worn together comfortably. For my part, I definitely choose to write about things with the knowledge that I have a readership in the White House and in offices of the leadership in the House and Senate. I want to convince them of certain things. And that can shade what I write about and what I choose not to write about. But my primary focus is on my regular readers who come from all over the country and even the world. I want to tell my readers the truth as I see it. So, no, I never considered giving false analysis as a negotiating tool. I don’t flatter myself that I can move votes in the Senate. And I certainly am not the right person to convince Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman to vote for a public option.
So, what’s more important to you? That bloggers tell you what is going on to the best of their ability, or that they use their readership to push an agenda you support?
I’d say both are important to me–I’ve used bloggers as sources of information that I can’t find in the mainsatream media and I also like it when bloggers use their readership to push an agenda I support.
Okay, but how about when those two things conflict?
Then I prefer honest analysis. Who wants to try to read tea leaves on what a poster really means. I think it’s called ….. integrity.
I wonder how much of the claiming to be trying to influence policy is simply stepping back from going to far. It almost gives a person the ability to say anything. Would me calling Obama an uncle tom and then claiming I am simply trying to move him towards more affirmative action be permissible? I don’t think so.
nalbar
How can they conflict? If it requires dishonesty to push an agenda, there’s something wrong with the agenda and/or with the blogger. I think you’re making a false dichotomy. An agenda should be supportable by an honest take on what’s going on, which naturally leads to saying, or ranting, about why that is wonderful or outrageous. Opinion that doesn’t come from honest and intelligent consideration of the facts is worthless. If we wanted that we’d all be hanging on every word at Fox News and the WSJ editorial page.
I think the false dichotomy is a splinter of the larger dispute that has been raging among the “left” blog ecology. We are seeing the classic wingnut response to criticism from supposed allies, making communication with our alleged friends as impossible as it is with the habitues at Red State, etc. Somebody objects to a post calling Obama a turncoat, a sellout, a corporate quisling, or agitating to primary him when his term is up, and otherwise echoing the rhetoric of teabaggers. The response is, oh, excuse me for not worshiping Obama and daring to think for myself instead of toeing the cult line. Exactly what you get from the wingnut brigade when you question their claims.
I’ve found it impossible in most cases (hardly ever around here, I might add) to get any acknowledgment that there is a difference between bitching about how HCR turned out, for example, and claiming to know that Obama and the Democrats never wanted any reform at all and were only forced into this worthless compromise by the heroic intervention of “progressives”. It’s sad and startling to realize how much disingenuousness and plain old obtuseness there is on our side.
In the current example, though, I don’t believe Lewison’s take. It makes more sense that Markos was expressing the rage and disappointment he (and many of us) felt at the time, perhaps in part because he was doing too much opinionating and not enough fact checking and thinking.
“So, what’s more important to you? That bloggers tell you what is going on to the best of their ability, or that they use their readership to push an agenda you support?”
I thought the whole ‘let’s pretend the senate bill is a piece of shit’ argument, made by the same people who continually mock Obama for ’11-dimensional chess’, damaged the credibility of a number of bloggers.
When I go to someone’s website, I want to know I’m getting their real thoughts and not some backroom agenda/plan/coordination amongst the left blogging elite, and I certainly don’t want to feel like I’m being manipulated by deception.
I read for information and analysis; I don’t want to feel played or used.
One problem with Lewison’s interpretation is that Daily Kos as a whole has a very negative vibe about the President, and there’s a lot of anger in the online left (as opposed to rank-and-file Democrats in polls, who strongly support the President). To the degree that Kos’s remarks just stirred up more anger, I think they were counterproductive.
One problem with Lewison’s interpretation is that Daily Kos as a whole has a very negative vibe about the President, and there’s a lot of anger in the online left (as opposed to rank-and-file Democrats in polls, who strongly support the President).
How deep is that support? Look at Chris Dodd for example. I presume you’ve seen the polls that show the Democrats holding that Senate seat now. Sure, as Democrats we all want Obama to do well. But we don’t want him beholden to Tim Geithner or “B-52” Ben Bernanke. Or beholden to Pete Peterson or the MIC. If Rasmussen calls, are we gonna tell them we don’t like what Obama is doing? Of course not. So don’t let that fool you.
I do think that the level of progressive anger is strongest online, among people who are watching the details.
Regardless, we face a year when Democrats’ biggest problem is that Republicans are fired up to go the polls, and Democrats aren’t. Undercutting the major legislative achievement of Obama’s first year (fingers crossed) is not going to help.
And one could also say that it makes no sense for Obama/Congress to water it down for votes he’s never going to get(see stimulus) .. or to take reconciliation off the table for health care .. besides … if they suffer huge losses .. they’ll only have themselves to blame .. they could have enacted policies that fired up the base .. but chose not to
Maybe you shouldn’t lie in a telephone poll then.
This is one of the posts you should put up over at DK. I am one of those who wish to not be lied to or played by people on my side, but I’m not totally surprised when it happens.
Also, I think it’s appropriate that progressives are angry at Obama, but the expressions of that anger aren’t always appropriate. Our anger judiciously used used should help to move things closer to the way we things are sposed to be.
I heartily agree:
(not counting the slang/typos, of course!)
If one wants to lose intelligent readers, play them.
Agenda. If you have WH readership, you need to be more upfront with your “Obama needs to give the base something to be motivated about.”
Blogging is for me just like sitting in a busy cafe or pub – some people come out with (what I think) is a load of rubbish.
Its all about reputation – popular blogs – if they are known for their honesty (or otherwise) will get a reputation.
It is down to the individual not to believe everything they read from 1 source. Exactly the same things happen in print – if you were just to read the trashy end of the printed press you might think there was a bus on the moon.
Wonder why Kos didn’t just fess up and admit to Tweeting While Enraged? Seems like that’s the less egregious offence.
Claiming a plan will fool some into thinking you are wise.
I think there are two things to this:
First, I think being able to separate emotion from analysis/information dissemination is very important. You, Booman, do very well in this regard. I’m pretty sure you aren’t totally happy with how HCR has gone down, but your posts on process and ideas on scenarios are devoid of teeth-gnashing stridency and are presented in a thoughtful tone that allows the reader to walk through the argument and come to their own conclusion.
That’s one reason why I read you every day.
Now contrast that with Ms. Hamsher. Day after day, post after post, she writes with a tone of outrage that is very difficult to read, even if she’s right and/or has the facts on her side.
The second thing I think is important is being square with the readership about what you think, or as you put it, “I want to tell my readers the truth as I see it. So. no, I never considered giving false analysis as a negotiating tool.” That’s important because it gives me a level touchstone or base to start consideration of ideas.
Again, in contrast, look at Ms. Hamsher. She paid people to post diaries at DKos, and once the Senate bill came down the pipe, she had her people continue to post misleading information about the goings on in DC. For me, that’s incredibly bad. I can’t read there without taking a giant grain of salt because her antics and obvious agenda have skewed things out of whack.
I used to read David Dayen at Digby’s place and at other places, but I can’t read him now because he’s tangled up with Jane. It’s a shame, almost, I guess.
Ugh, seconded about Dayen. I said the same thing the other day…
Here’s an example of what happens for me when people aren’t square with their readership:
Slinkerwink has a rec list diary at DKos about the Senate excise tax:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/7/822737/-More-On-The-Excise-Tax-Myth-About-Wages-Going-Up
Now, I could read that diary and consider the information within, but I choose not to. Why? Because she has peddled disinformation that was debunked and was part of Jane’s agenda-driven setup. Slinkerwink has said that she’s no longer part of Jane’s crew, but she’s bankrupted any kind of “trust” or confidence in her ability to communicate. I have no desire to read what she says, even if she may be right.
.
becomes a politician with the same lies and distrust. An honesty ranking at the bottom of most professions, just above a car salesman and lobbyist. Serves him right.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."There is a place for honest analysis and for honest, even passionate advocacy. Key word honest. Of the two I prefer clear, well reasoned analysis, but I’m OK with the occasional rant or passionate plea.
What I don’t like is dishonest, cynical manipulation. The seemingly rational, dispassionate analysis based on sophistical arguments and false or cherry picked facts. The rhetorical chest-thumping designed not to persuade but to distract or mislead.
And I particularly dislike the one-line quote, taken out of context, used to “prove” anything about anyone’s intentions or motives.
Of the two I prefer clear, well reasoned analysis
I meant to add, that’s why I come to the Frog Pond first.
We all have agendas, whether we are aware of them or not. The best of us are sufficiently self-aware and honest to be upfront about those agendas and thus not mislead our readers in any way. One of my problems with the MSM is the claim to impartial objectivity – “just the news”; “just the facts”, and the quaint assumption that taking a position somewhere down where you presume the “middle” to be is supposed to make you non-partisan.
There has been much concern amongst the progressive blogosphere that wingnut demagoguery has succeed in moving the Overton window far to the right, and that progressives need to do the same on the left to move it back. That is an arguable position to take – even if it reeks of a certain contempt for the intelligence of the electorate – but it is a political position.
Some (many?) people like their political positions and supporting information pre-baked, if not half baked for them, and reading a blogger who’s political position is similar to yours can save a lot of time in independent research and analysis. It’s a shorthand way to check on current happenings without having to do the digging yourself and allows you to spend your time on your own speciality.
But once such advocacy shades into deception – the deliberate repetition of untruths, the selective avoidance of inconvenient facts, the focus only on favourable data – you go rapidly downmarket into the stupid to the point where you reach only the ignorant – and the discerning have long left you behind.
But you do have choices. Are you trying to influence the WH? Are you trying to represent a particular constituency/point of view/interest group to them? Or are you an interpretor on the part of the Obama regime trying to keep his constituencies onside by giving the party line to the faithful – always with some contextualising comments to give the appearance of disinterest?
There are many niches for many different kinds of writing. Just because you genuinely believe in what you are doing doesn’t make it right, although at least it does demonstrate integrity. Some very sincere people can also be complete idiots.
I stopped watching TV and reading much MSM because I dislike being manipulated or being taken for a fool. I don’t want to be anyone’s “target market”. But ultimately you can’t stop people going where they want to and so ultimately your best bet is to level with them. The chances are you will get a readership that will level with you.
we disagreed vehemently over this very issue almost two years ago. I could assume that you’ve come around to my side. But that would be foolish of me. More likely you just see things differently when you disagree with the strategy.
My viewpoint remains unchanged.
I just reread that thread – I still am confused, as I was then, by the point you were trying to make.
I take her point to be disapproval of bloggers strategizing behind the scenes and then delivering a coordinated message to their readers. And she is saying that I supported that on FISA because I approved of the strategy but don’t support it on health care because I don’t support the strategy.
But her criticism back then was ill-founded. She was saying that we were ignoring important flaws with the bill, but we hadn’t ignored them at all. She said we were risking Bush signing a bill without immunity, but the risk of that was infinitesimal. We weren’t being dishonest back then. We had done an excellent job of educating our readers.
The health care debate is different because people have been taking a position all year that impugns our own leaders character and motives and mischaracterizes the political landscape, effectively misinforming their readers over a sustained period of time, in the name of activism.
Different animals entirely.
Thanks for the clarification!
Reading that thread I can understand the disconnect – I don’t think she got that you were talking about a strategy. It took me three times re-reading the entire thread to get the point, so it’s quite possible that she didn’t get it either. Your point was that if telecom immunity was stripped out then the whole bill would be killed, so you were focusing on telecom immunity. I don’t think she got that point but I could be wrong.
Both would be good.
And yes, some bloggers go over the top. However…
Before you criticize bloggers who are wary of the current White House, consider Byron Dorgan’s retirement from the Senate, announced yesterday.
Last month Dorgan advocated against Big Pharma for cheaper prescription drugs last month, and the White House and Harry Reid undermined him at every turn.
Dorgan saw the Wall Street meltdown coming a number of years ago, and named derivatives for the dangers they are. He advocated for Net Neutrality against big telecoms before it was cool.
He is an unapologetic progressive. He is leaving the Senate knowing he can not get the support of Obama or the Senate leadership.
Why SHOULDN’T progressive bloggers speak out more forcefully?
There’s a difference between speaking out forcefully and honestly, and distorting an argument solely to advance an agenda. The former I very much support. The latter I despise.
If a blogger pushes an agenda just to manipulate, as Lewison contends that Markos did, then that blogger is just being a lobbyist and/or a politician.
That is not why I read the blogs that I do read.
Exactly. When someone moves from analysis to propaganda, that’s when I tune out. And rightfully so.
The question you are asking is not a trivial one.
What’s important to me is getting the politics and government of this country turned around and heading in a directions that actually solves problems instead of making them worse.
Blogs have several functions in doing this. The first is the presentation of primary data. This is by far the most underserved area of the blogosphere. And it causes over-reliance on the resources of the established media, which have clear agendas unrelated to the truth. The most recent example of this failing of the established media is the Washington Post’s pushing of Pete Peterson’s fiscal scold campaign without doing adequate fact-checking. We need blog sources that do that fact-checking. Significant attempts to do this are Brian Beutler of TPM, and Sam Stein, Ryan Grim, Arthur Delany, and Nico Pitney of Huffington Post. But we are a long way of having independent sources of primary data and events for analysis. And without accurate primary data, analyis becomes “garbage in, garbage out”.
The second is the analysis of data that can provide a basis of understanding events in context and over time. There are lots of specialized blogs that do this, focusing on a particular policy area.
The third is what is generally goes by the term “pundit” — offering mass media opinion on a particular field. A substantial part of the progressive blogosphere falls into this category although the market in question might not be “mass”. And this is the area that is most scrutinized by those interested in “blogger ethics”. This is a matter of offering more or less informed opinion based on analysis and often projecting outcomes or identifying alternative actions.
The fourth is advocacy blogging. These blogs often are operated by advocacy groups. Others are integrators of advocacy blogging for a variety of advocacy groups focused on an independent blog’s agenda. These blogs identify upcoming actions and promote them, ask for financial support of organization other than the blog, and advocate a variety of campaigns to shift either public opinion or the opinions of government officials.
The fifth is action organization and coordination blogs. These blogs deal with the nitty-gritty of specific actions, preparations, and follow-up. They are more based on diaries and comments than on the opinions of the blog owner or lead blogger. They identify the who, where, when, how, how much, and why of upcoming actions.
The progressive movement needs all of these and their interaction in order to promote progressive politics in the US. And part of the reason is that there is 24/7 noise machine operating throughout most of rural America that serves up nothing but propaganda intended to deceive. And it tends to be the only voice — in every tractor cab, in every cafe, in every bar, in every gas station.
To look at a Senate bill in negotiation and to Tweet (who reads Marcos’s tweets? I don’t) that in its current condition the bill should be killed is not a dishonest statement on its face. To say, accurately or not, that sentiments like that from the progressive blogosphere opened the door for changes that might not otherwise be there does not imply that the original statement was just for effect. It is an honest opinion of why the bill got better. Why are you interpreting this as a mere “negotiating ploy”; my sense is that it was not a “ploy” in the sense of misleading but an honest opinion that changed as events occurred.
The key assertion in Lewison’s statement is “the notion that progressives made the bill worse is implausible”. Are you arguing that this is not true–that in fact progressives made the bill worse?
As you know, I don’t think that progressives have that much power yet. That they are a blogosphere without a movement.
In 6 years of doing this stuff, I’ve learned to not take any of it seriously at all. I certainly don’t write in a serious way myself, and luckily people don’t expect me to. The dearth of figurative thinking in the leftosphere has ceased to be a disappointment to me, and is now more like a feature.
Obviously I can only speak for myself, but I guess I realized a while ago that when I blog, it’s a creative thing, as opposed to something more outwardly “constructive.” I’ve long been used to misinterpretation–because everything you release from your own head will be misinterpreted–but I choose to not let other peoples’ hangups fuck with my art.
That would probably sound cooler if I actually made art. But my blogs are just blogs. As for the stuff I read, well…I’ve learned to not let policy differences (held by people I’ve never met) become personal differences. That doesn’t really answer the question, but since I’m not looking to be respected as a serious person, I’m okay with that.
“So, what’s more important to you? That bloggers tell you what is going on to the best of their ability, or that they use their readership to push an agenda you support?”
I think telling it like it is to the best of your ability is what best pushes an agenda. The manufacture of outrage gets attention, but usually ends up creating an echo chamber.
At DKos its all about driving an agenda and from where I’m sitting it appears facts are often pushed aside to achieve the desired goals.
I spent a long time writing for local and national audiences, and I have a lot of thoughts on this, which I’ll try to condense.
I became a writer as an outgrowth of my activism. I’ve treated all my media work as an extension of my advocacy – but I’ve always been up front about that. As long as you’re honest with people about the difference between facts and your opinion, they usually can make the distinction and appreciate your being upfront about your biases (which we all have).
That said, we all choose which “facts” to emphasize, and people read bloggers’ analysis in large part because there’s too little time and too much information – they go to sources whose views they understand (and often agree with) for insights not even so much on what to think, but what’s important to think about.
But a megablogger like Markos is in a whole different stratosphere. There are always readers who’ll pick apart every nuance and word choice. With Kos, there are hundreds of thousands of them, some very influential. Every day. So you have a responsibility to weigh everything you say very, very carefully. You can’t always say what’s really on your mind. Just like a politician (or NFL coach, to use a less loaded analogy), and I don’t mean that in a bad way. You have to weigh the consequences of your public pronouncements in a way that lesser-known writers don’t.
Lastly, as a writer – especially a blogger, who is much more directly accountable to her/his audience than traditionally published writers – you also have a responsibility to retain a audience. That means writing clearly, entertainingly, concisely, and without an excess of chin-stroking ambivalence. People expect to hear your opinion, and if your honest opinion is “I don’t know,” you can get away with saying so on occasion, but not regularly. Sometimes you’ll use hyperbole just to make a point. And sometimes you’ll use bad judgment or a word choice you’ll regret later; we’re all human.
It’s a tricky balance, and for someone like Kos it’s a lot of pressure. But in the end, you have to trust your audience. If you don’t respect your readers (or listeners, or viewers), sooner or later, they’ll figure it out. And then it doesn’t matter what tack you take, because almost nobody will care.
We have the same background.
I think the problem arises when you start writing things not because you think they are true but because you want to convince some power broker that you think it is true. You get into a trap. Progressive opinion leaders (well-read bloggers) were a bit introspective after their early embrace of the medicare buy-in led directly to Lieberman rejecting it. In part, this is because Lieberman rather expressly said that his reason for rejecting it was in part exactly because progressives liked it.
Atrios warned us early on that we ought not embrace it lest Lieberman and other hippie bashers reject it for just that reason. But you can’t really play that game and still keep your integrity with your readers.
Very true.
If you feel like your honest opinion would be tactically counter-productive, simply not weighing in on the issue is often a better option. For many of us, knowing when to zip it is not naturally one of our strong suits. But you can’t last long if you don’t learn it.
Not to mention, your readers are expecting you to offer an opinion.
There was plenty not to embrace. Again, the issue is not hating the bill, it’s about namecalling, unsupported attribution of devious motives, and refusing to admit that there’s anything worthwhile in the bill at all.
And I think it’s obvious that Lieberman was lying his crinkly ass off as usual.
I agree that what facts you select shows your opinion. But honest presenters choose facts that honestly represent the record – not the outliers or anomolies, for the most part.
PERIOD.
I don’t give a flying finger for people’s opinions, rants, etc.
Data I love. Intelligent analysis of data I love. Opinions schminions.
Give me facts. You do. That’s why I keep coming back. That and the fact that this site seems filled mostly with rational, progressive but not uncompromising human beings who are kind and decent to each other, for the most part.
Have to totally disagree. I want to know what the facts mean to people who have presumably studied them and whose motivations and agendas are somewhat transparent. Doesn’t mean I’m going to buy into the conclusions they reach, but I’d hope they’d help set parameters for my own attempts to form an opinion — a backboard to bounce off of, if nothing else.
But I don’t really know what you mean when you make a distinction between analysis and opinion, so maybe I’m missing something (again).
Analysis to me is a condensation and ordering of the facts.
Opinion is what you’re left with when you run out of facts. Opinions from some people do weigh more than others, but given a set of facts, I’m quite capable of drawing my own opinions, and don’t need someone else to guide me. What I appreciate is when people can add to the knowledge base, not just the opinion base.
Someone once said something like opinions are like a nose. Everyone’s got one, but so what.
But the example cited is a tweet, not a post at dkos. Should expectations be the same for a tweet as a carefully drafted blog post?
He made a well-reasoned post about it.
Is an election wonk-cum-wannabe hack. I’ve never gotten the impression he’s all that committed to or interested in the editorial content of or public policy posited on his site.
He leaves it to the staff, which produces a muddled, mixed bag. (MB front paging his Contra War diary over the holidays is a great example… you waited 30 years to grind this axe?? OK.. grandpa… SANDINISTA!!!)
So, yea, he took Jane’s money and dribbled jiberish out of both sides of his mouth. Maybe it’s disingenuous, but at least he didn’t MAKE THE LIST, like you, pal….