In a shocking discovery sure to rock the Internet, it was reported on the prominent Massachusetts television station WGBH that Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller don't actually exist. Turns out, it was all Jerome Armstrong all this time!
No, no, I'm serious. They did report that. Follow below the flip ...
Here's the gruesome details as reported by WGBH:
The Times piece said that few of the kept bloggers shut down their independent sites after going on the take, but it went even beyond that. Armstrong bragged this week that the other bloggers he'd farmed out his website to, were in reality, him, writing under those aliases the entire time. And the blogrolling didn't stop there: Armstrong also posed as liberal blogger Scott Shields, who posted for pay for yet another Democratic candidate. But David Kravitz says not to worry, the truth will out.
So, not only did Jerome Armstrong do all the posts on MyDD under such aliases as "Chris Bowers" and "Matt Stoller," he also hoodwinked the Menendez campaign by going to work for them as "Scott Shields"! Shocking!
Seems hard to believe, but the reporting for that claim was done by reading a post on MyDD from a "Jonathan Singer" (HA!):
While Glover does note that some of "these bloggers shut down their 'independent' sites after signing on with campaigns" or that "most disclosed their campaign ties on their blogs", he fails to mention the fact that a number of the bloggers, like Jerome, largely recused themselves of writing during the course of their employment, farming out writing responsibilities to other bloggers like Chris, Matt and myself.
The reason why may shock you: Chris, Matt and Jonathan do not exist, despite any previous claims. He got me. We're all the same person. I (Jerome) have been writing under these aliases the entire time I have been working on other campaigns. I also used to write under the name of Scott Shields until I got hired under that pseudonym by another campaign. Thought you met Matt, Chris or Jonathan at Yearly Kos or some other event? Most likely you met one of the young fellows I paid to play those roles. They're just out of work, dime a dozen actors from Los Angeles. Anyone could have played them.
Where does it end? Does Markos really exist, or is Jerome paying an actor to portray him, too? Josh Marshall? Duncan Black? Oh, the humanity!
Is the whole blogging thing just a big "Jerome"? "Jerome-roots"? The "Jerome-o-sphere"?
In fact, I'm Jerome. And so's my wife.
OK, OK ... I'd actually planned to do the whole post "in character," but, ya never know, Little Russ or Bill O might be reading this, so ... Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller really do exist, pundits. Jonathan Singer was joking.
Paid actors! And the folks from WGBH read that and think, "What a story"?!? Wow ... just wow. Not to mention they possibly crossed the legal line into slander when it comes to Jerome Armstrong.
When folks reported on various blogger ethics stories, I used to think, "How stupid do they think we are?" Well, I now have the answer: as stupid as they are.
So, for the pundits and others who don't seem to get this ... when we read things here on the Internet, we can filter things for the known biases of the writers and sites (unlike you, since you can't seem to filter for simple sarcasm). I mean, Scott Shields works for a Democratic candidate and then goes back to blogging? Does that mean he might be partial towards (gasp) Democrats?!? On MyDD? What ever shall we do?
See, we understand that MyDD is a liberal website. And Daily Kos is a partisan Democratic site. And Real Clear Politics is a conservative one. And Instapundit is a stupid one. So we read all of those with that in mind. We can filter the information taking into account those known biases. Why is this so hard to understand?
But, obviously, the pundits are used to a vision of the world where the information just flows into the consumer/viewer with little or no filtering. And, in the case of television, that's sometimes right. It's one reason why TV advertising can be so powerful; the moving visual image bypassing some of the higher processing of the brain. So, I guess it has some basis in reality, this idea of theirs. Plus, the respect for authority figures used to be much higher in the days the pundit shows got their starts ...
Mostly, though, it's just arrogance, I think. They think their proclamations come from on high, and we, the masses, soak up their impartial wisdom. So when they see a juicy story of bloggers doing something they perceive as wrong (like inventing a whole cast of characters!), they both believe it instantly (because they want to), and broadcast it to show how much more trustworthy they (the pundits) are.
They really believe that we just take what they say as some form of detached wisdom.
Again, how stupid do they think we are?
And, in their zeal to discredit their competition, they viciously slandered Jerome. As Duncan Black would say (if he really existed) ... time for another blogger ethics panel.
update: Here is the contact page for Greater Boston. All joking aside, their piece was a vicious hit piece on bloggers in general and Jerome in particular. Feel free to let them know how wrong they were. Polite is always better ...