The Media's BDS: Blogger Derangement Syndrome

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:29:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Glenn Greenwald documents some of the big names that have caught it - and it all seems to be about David Broder, as far as I can tell.

It's funny, because I think most of the blogs absolutely revere good journalism and smart punditry. One of the guys I have liked and praised is Jon Alter, even though I have disagreed with him from time to time. I think Joe Klein has been living up to his talent this year, and yes, I think Klein is very talented and very smart. So when they say things like this and this, I can only chalk it up to BDS, Blogger Derangement Syndrome, on which Atrios has more today. Jon Alter's statements are really shocking:

There's one dimension of the blogosphere that never ceases to amaze me: Some people disbelieve nearly everything they read in the "mainstream media" -- and believe nearly everything they read online. Never mind that the ground-breaking reporting on which they base their opinions often comes from the MSM publications like Newsweek, The Washington Post, and The New York Times.

Who are these "some people?" Let me be blunt - if this is an example of the political reporting we get from the MSM, and it is, it never ceases to amaze me that someone as GOOD as Jon Alter would choose to defend it. There are "some people" of course. But that is not Alter's insinuation. It is most bloggers he is thinking of. And that is just false. Bloggers have practically built churches for reporters and pundits like Dana Priest, Paul Krugman, Ed Wong and yes, for good strong reporter/pundits like Jon Alter.

Here is a strange debasement by Alter, loweirng his batting average to that of the execrable Broder and the, at best, pedestrian, Tom Edsall:

Why do I bore you with this? Only to reinforce the point to be careful of believing everything you read. Just because it's in Radar or online somewhere doesn't make it true. The same goes for reading me or Tom Edsall or others who happen to have worked at first-rate news organizations. But our batting averages--and David Broder's--are a helluva lot higher than the Jebidiah Reeds of the world, which is only one of the reasons why the readers of Huffington Post are lucky to have Edsall aboard.

Well, Alter's batting average is not bad and he is, dare I say it, one of my favorites. But he got pissed and it creeped into his piece. He is BETTER than David Broder and Tom Edsall. A lot better. IF what he says is true, then I can understand his anger at the Radar Online reporter Jebidiah Reed:

At the restaurant, a group of us had lunch. I explicitly told Reed that it was off-the-record, and he explicitly agreed. (Not a good habit to get into, Jebidiah, screwing with that one.) I should have known better than to trust a reporter I didn't know, but throwing him out of the lunch so that Gravel and I could talk didn't seem sporting. Reed quotes me as uncomfortably saying, "I have to get going," when one of Gravel's comments about the Bush daughters was supposedly too mind-blowing for the clueless pundit to absorb. The only problem with that rendition was that because I had to catch a plane, I ordered my lunch before everyone else's and stayed much too long for the time I had allotted. I took my leave (paying for Reed's lunch, plus that of the Gravel entourage) at a different point in the conversation than reported in the story, but accuracy would not have fit Reed's thesis any better than it did in the case of the sidewalk chat.

If this is true, then Reed has some 'splaining to do. And Alter is right to be upset. But, as Greenwald points out, Alter's defense of Tom Edsall does NOT wash:

I don't remember [Edsall] calling Broder "the voice of the people," but if he did, it was said with a pleasantly arch tone, neither serious nor sarcastic.

This makes no sense. And it is shocking that a good reporter/pundit like Alter would write those words. Yes, they are Gonzalesque.

My theory? It was BDS; blogger derangement syndrome.

< Bush Wants $100 Billion for Iraq But Will Veto 3.5 Billion in Farm Aid | Amendment Offered to Limit Intelligence Wiretapping to FISA >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Media's BDS: Blogger Derangement Syndrome | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

as i've said before (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by skippybkroo on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:56:59 AM EST

the mmm (multi-millionaire media) is deathly afraid of the new media, and that's why they go out of their way to be incredibly shrill and panicked in their writings about blogs. they see ordinary people doing their own jobs...disseminating information, exchanging ideas, analyzing news...and doing it for free (or very little money). and it scares them.

be that as it may, bds affects the main stream journalists. but hope that if you're a blogger you don't get ted barlow disease.

: Like you (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:03:17 AM EST

I am too fond of my own voice to contract Barlow disease.

What it is; (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Semanticleo on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:13:22 AM EST

Alter shoots from the hip, now and again.

In point of fact, the msm is not much different from
Blogs. They often operate from gut instinct, then proceed (or not) to substantiate their belief with
some facts. When you think of it, scientists employ
the same methods in research. You start with an hypothesis, then you research and write your paper.

Humans, being what they are, primarily use the cerebral cortex for justifying the decisions already made. And BDS should be left alone, for it symbolizes the projection which animates the solipsism so familiar to those who still find those who think Nixon was railroaded.

: BDS (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:29:14 AM EST

is my ironic use of the acronym the Right blogs used to explain why the Left Blogs opposed the Iraq debacle.

Alter is dead wrong (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Che's Lounge on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:53:02 AM EST

It may appear to many lemmings that some of us (I have no problem being included in the group) disagree with everything in the MSM. We just look at the world from a different POV. The clarity is astounding when you take off the rose colored glasses.

Personally though I try to be active, I consider myself more or less of a cynical observer of the inexorable decline & fall of th US imperialist empire and the internal decay wrought by the corporatists. They only care about profits and passing their massive wealth on to their amoralistic children (see GWB, Paris Hilton, etc).

"some people" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by scarshapedstar on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:14:30 PM EST

After all, there's no better sign of journamalismal integrity than that classic George Bush speechifiying construction.

"Some people think that, uh, little Iraqi babies ought to be torn limb from limb. I strongly disagree."
(wild applause from handpicked audience)

Obviously, Jon Alter reads (4.00 / 1) (#9)
by oculus on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:14:16 PM EST

Daily Kos:

Some people disbelieve nearly everything they read in the "mainstream media" -- and believe nearly everything they read online. Never mind that the ground-breaking reporting on which they base their opinions often comes from the MSM publications like Newsweek, The Washington Post, and The New York Times.

If one does not inflate "some people" into "all people," this is an accurate statement, I think.

The question is (none / 0) (#7)
by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:45:24 PM EST

what do we want to accomplish here?

This mosaic of quotes and the exchange between Greenwald and Klein has really exposed the nub of the conflict between establishment pundits and bloggers - bloggers want to express their own narratives and have them heard, because they aren't being heard, and the pundits want to maintain their privileged position of being the only expressers of all valid narratives.

The balance of power currently exists with the establishment pundits who have access to the mass media and the ability to poison the well for bloggers as far as the large percentage of the population who doesn't read blogs goes, who only know about blogs through what the establishment pundits say about them.

I would say that what we want to accomplish is to open up the range of true narratives available to the society as a whole, because better policies will be enacted then that benefit people more truly. That won't be served by having the well poisoned the way it's being. Perhaps if the pundits weren't so afraid of losing their privileged positions they might not be so inclined to poison the well. If they could be assured that the pie can simply be made higher and they won't lose their (overlarge) pieces they might stop using their privileged positions to ruin what could be a peaceful revolution. If you will, a kind of bribery until they FOAD.

This is the kind of fight ... (none / 0) (#8)
by janinsanfran on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:22:47 PM EST

in which the smart tactic is to relax because WE ARE WINNING. Bloggers are getting heard and will continue to, unless capitalism can domesticate this anarchic medium. That's possible, but unlikely.

Folks whose medium has become technologically obsolete, or at best shrinking, are going to be pissy about it. We can afford to be nice to them and watch the world pass them by.

Jebediah fights back. (none / 0) (#10)
by tbetz on Fri May 11, 2007 at 04:20:32 PM EST

Note that Jebediah Reed has pointed out that Alter's reporting on the exchange was severely fact-challenged, and that he's got tape recordings to back him up.

It will certainly be amusing to see what Gravel has to say about this. He's senior statesman enough to tell the truth without regard for anyone's feelings; I suspect that he'll confirm Reed's version of events.

Coming to this subject (none / 0) (#11)
by gollo on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:31:29 PM EST

without any knowledge of Alter or Reed, I would say that Alter's account is so full of logical fallacies, which, at the very least, questions his ability to analyze anything, and would leave me not trusting his authority in that area.