This week, there's been a big increase in blaming the blogs. The Gannon/Guckert story has largely diverted into a twin-headed story about (1) the man being a gay prostitute, and (2) blood-thirsty bloggers bringing this fact to light for no reason other than blood thirst. Then there's the Eason Jordan story.
CJR alleges that it was the bloodthirstiness of the blogs that led to "neither denial nor apology [being] enough", ultimately leading to Jordan's "corporate overlords" forcing him to resign.
Kevin Drum chimed in, too, characterizing as "scalp-collecting" the blogosphere's circulation and development of these and other stories, which have ultimately led to several individuals being forced to resign, or being fired (though in the case of Guckert, it's difficult to believe that his job at Talon News was bona fide, and if it wasn't, then resigning from it is meaningless).
CJR and Drum lament that these stories seem to demonstrate that the blogosphere is being Used For Ill, Not For Good.
jump with me...
They both ascribe an awful lot of real, true power to blogging.
I find it rather incredible, though, that as CJR implies, the CNN "corporate overlords" collective hand was guided by the outcries of outraged bloggers. As in, I find it literally incredible. Since when did CNN or any other major media outlet give a rat's ass about what a few people huddled over the internets are kvetching about? Last time I checked, CNN's only sense of obligation seemed to be imitating Fox, worshipping power, and keeping/boosting advertising revenues. Really, blogs forced their hand? Well, guys, this is it: apparently we have a shitload of power, and didn't even know it. Let's make up our wishlist of everything else we want, so we can get that, too. I'll start with a top three: investigation of war crimes by the administration; nation-wide implementation of uniform, transparent, verifiable voting; outlawing corporate lobbying.
Really, this looks a lot like good old-fashioned scapegoating. These so-called victims cooked their own gooses. Bloggers didn't do it - all bloggers did was talk about it, and enabled others to know of the missteps, but they never mischaracterized Eason Jordan's comments, or forced Guckert/Gannon to be a shill. These guys acted all on their own. It's nonsensical that the scapegoat for these misdeeds is now, somehow, in a kill-the-messengers twist, the bloggers.
Put simply, this doesn't pass the red-face test. Time for a little Republican "personal responsibility": responsibility for the consequences of Jordan's or Guckert's acts, lies with the actors themselves. And the punishments for their `crimes' is certainly not - and never was - in the hands of bloggers. It is in the hands of the wrongdoers themselves, or their bosses. It's silly and dishonest to blame bloggers for CNN's over-reaction to Eason Jordan. Blame CNN.
Similarly, with Guckert, why didn't he just tell the world to fuck off, that his job performance spoke for itself and anyone with a beef about his personal life was just a partisan, or hack, or witch-hunter, or whatever? Oh, that's right, because Guckert can't defend himself with his job performance. Turns out, his job may have been to be a plant and a paid shill. If all this blogging leads to uncovering this, it will have been well worth it. And if not? It's exposed some other important gaps in WH security, during their fever-pitch fear-mongering, so it was still worth it. It's worth knowing and discussing that the WH will vet "journalists" that the Congress won't.
All this talk about public versus private? Nonsense. No one "dragged" Guckert out into the public eye. He put himself there, proudly, and apparently without hesitation. He got his 15 minutes two years worth' of fame, he rode the homophobia wagon to VIPland, and now he has had own resounding hypocrisy exposed. Is this so wrong? I for one don't think so. I think if any of us - any one of us, public or private - spends any amount of our lives gaining fame or even just local notoriety for being against one type of value or activity, and for another - we damn well better be walking the walk, period.
Think about this: what if it had been a bona fide journalist that discovered, and reported, the truth about Guckert? Would there be the same kill-the-messenger reaction? I doubt it. As others have pointed out, Guckert did his little journalist impersonation right in front of the RWCM. Not one of them had the brains, or balls, or curiosity, or whatever, to notice or care. He got away with this for two years, remember. And that fact counts for a lot.
Ramping up the attacks on blogging is, in my opinion, an indication that the movement against blogging is snowballing. It's now even pulling in other bloggers, as Kevin Drum unfortunately shows us. Lately, even Kevin seems to agree with the complaints about blogs becoming virtual lynch mobs. But this accusation is not only incredibly inflammatory, and purposeless - it's also totally absurd. There is not - can never be - a blogging lynch mob. Remember, a "lynch mob" in real life was life-or-death dangerous. Comparing information-sharing, or exposing hypocrisy, to literally homicidal mobs is, at worst totally ignorant, and at best totally dishonest. It is similar to how right-wingers characterize disagreement with them as "persecution" and "discrimination". We cannot keep acqueiscing to their misuse of language, which is designed to infuse very negative imagery into what is otherwise just a rational discussion. And, it is a disguised attempt to marginalize this medium, and thereby reassume control the flow of information.
What about sunlight being the best disinfectant? We have been deprived of honest information in this country for far too long, and the result is stunning corruption, that goes all the way down to little nobodies like Jim Dale Guckert. Blogging and other information-sharing will, hopefully, help us see not just how far down, but prove how far up the corruption goes. Please, fellow bloggers: don't jump on the anti-blog bandwagon; it's just trying to throw more obstacles in the path of honest dialogue.