Well, this is my last diary at DKos, at least for a good while, and judging by the comments to my recent diaries that will be cause for rejoicing by many. I can't promise I'll never be back, because this site has become, at least for me, the very center of the new liberal movement.
I posted two diaries over the weekend relating to Tim Russert, diaries I subsequently deleted at the request of various commenters and after the diaries elicited an avalanche of epithets, invective and personal abuse the likes of which I'd never seen at this site. But here are the google cached versions:
http://72.14.205.104/...
http://72.14.205.104/...
Like many in this community, I believe that our national media is afflicted with insiderism, an incestuous relationship with governmental power, and a tendency to "buddy up" to those in power whom the media should be reporting on with objectivity and appropriate skepticism. Of all the political implications of the blogosphere and sites like this one, it is holding the corporate media accountable that is most important. It is our function to keep tabs on those who should be keeping tabs on power.
In my opinion, no one in the corporate media has done that better during the benighted bush era than Keith Olbermann. While the rest of the media was going in the tank, he wouldn't shut up, he wouldn't suck up, and he wouldn't put up with lies from our government. He wouldn't sell out, but he's human, and many of his friends and associates are themselves insiders in the media power elite. So perhaps he does the human thing when his friends are criticized, as he did when he faulted criticism of Russert in the hours and days following Russert's untimely death.
I admired Olbermann's willingness to critically examine Bill Buckley's legacy on the day Buckley died. It was necessary, because too much of the media was whitewashing the record for their friend Bill. I didn't expect Olbermann to do the same with Russert because Russert was his friend and apparently a mentor as well. But I would hope he would understand that others would critically examine Russert's record, as he had examined Buckley's, even in the hours following their deaths.
Many commenters have expressed the belief that as this site becomes even more influential, more scrutinized by the media and the public at large, and more politically powerful, we should moderate our views and rein in the boisterous give and take. I couldn't disagree more. That's playing the insider game, and it is a repudiation of everything this site stands for.
Keith Olbermann is an insider. He can't help but be an insider. He may be perfectly impervious to seduction by the fame, power and money, but he works everyday among, and with, the media power elite. It's only natural that his views and sympathies will be affected by this association, no matter how dedicated he is to his journalism and his beliefs. And that's where we come in.
Last Friday I read the posts on Russert here at DKos and, like many, was appalled at the diaries and comments that personally attacked Russert and his character, diaries and comments of the "burn in hell" variety. But I was also concerned by the even more numerous diaries and comments elevating Russert to the status of a journalistic paragon. And so I wrote a diary that criticized one specific instance of what I believed to be an egregious journalistic lapse by Russert, and I strove to write it in the same non-personal and dispassionate way Olbermann had criticized Buckley in the hours following his death.
There were many others here who, I believe, endeavored to do the same thing. But we were all lumped in with the "burn in hell" diaries and comments, and we were all greeted, to one degree or another, with personal assaults. We were called classless and worse by many who had greeted Falwell's death with comments here at DKos heaping hate at Falwell in the hours following his death. We were lectured on decency by many who commented on hateful diaries about Falwell and who encouraged, rather than discouraged, the hate fest. And we were even lectured by civility by many who used words like "pig", "asshole", and "troll crap" to describe us. I didn't respond in kind over the weekend, but I blew a gasket the last few days when I was being HR'd on sight by others even when I tried to participate in non-Russert related discussions. I apologize for my angry responses.
This site MUST remain the site for The Outsiders. We absolutely SHOULD NOT approach the death of media and government elites in the same way we would the death of our friends, or non-public figures who haven't wielded power over us and others. The media itself showed us how to respond respectfully but critically to figures like Nixon and Falwell in the hours following their deaths. But the rightwing bullied too much of the media into FAILING to similarly approach Reagan's death. And the media, save for the New York Times, Olbermann and a few others, whitewashed their friend Buckley's record in the days following his death. And in so doing they began a process of shaping the historical record in ways that distorted and concealed the full impact these people had on us and our country.
It's only natural to want to be an insider, even in some small way. It's an impulse we must resist. This site has to resolutely and proudly remain outside the establishment. And it has to remember that even our heroes on the inside are human and susceptible to seduction by the fame, power and money that the establishment lavishes on our media elite.
This diary isn't about Russert or Olbermann, it's about this site and what it's about. I would hope that people who want to discuss these issues, if any, could do so without being deluged with HR's, pictures of kittens, and further criticism of the diarist that just reiterates the criticism levelled over the weekend.