Today I had a kind-of argument with a liberal friend of mine. I say "argument" because while we don't actually disagree on politics in a substantive way, I do tend to get impassioned on certain topics, and this somewhat animated discussion started with her questioning why do I read blogs? What's the appeal? Aren't I limiting myself to one point of view?
And isn't that as bad as those who only get their news from Fox?
Okay, so really I was defending my addiction to DailyKos and similar progressive blogs like Josh Marshall, Hullabaloo, Firedoglake and Glenn Greenwald. But it got me to thinking...
Here is a former hippy baby boomer, disgusted with Bushco, expressing her disillusionment with Democrats in general and questioning the value of a strong progressive blog forum in fighting the GOP threat.
She praised NPR and C-SPAN as her primary sources of news, and mourned the loss of true, civilized and balanced debate in the media (don't we all). She discussed how the Democrats are "all over the map" and "not really doing anything, just lying down and taking it." This - pay attention, my centrist, triangulating Senators and Representatives - is the voice of your disaffected base.
True, she's not going to vote Republican until Hell freezes over, but she feels frustrated because what's called "liberal" in the media - like Clintonian compromise - is really conservative in her view, and she doesn't see Howard Dean helping much, and she's not seeing Democrats effectively countering the GOP talking points. She's skeptical we can retake Congress or even the House. She's intelligent, informed, and though pessimistic, not exactly giving up. But for every lefty or true moderate like her, how many others just stop listening to the news, stop reading the paper, stop voting?
Yes, I made all the arguments: that as the party not in power, it's hard for us to get media coverage, and what we do get is slanted and manipulated by the dominant corporate, Bush-friendly mainstream.
I told her that I read the blogs to get the latest news, delivered within an informed frame and viewpoint that I trust for context and interpretation.
I told her about all the very smart people I've come to rely on - the economists, prosecutors, investigators, etc. - who make up the blogosphere. What would I do without bonddad to tell me what the latest economic report means, or Greenwald's take on Censure and FISA arguments, or what Fitz is up to lately from emptywheel or reddhedd, or what Juan Cole says about Iraq sectarian violence. The blogs I read give me a guided tour through current events with background, expertise and credible opinion.
She told me that what she really values most is when a news show has both a liberal and a righty speaker, and they can debate the issues, and the failings of the right become clear as they try to defend their positions. I said, yes, maybe once, that used to be the way we formed opinion through media coverage. But now the playing field is slanted, half the time there is no liberal voice represented; if there is one, that point of view is muddled, ridiculed out of context, or cut off in mid-sentence.
I believe that DailyKos and other progressive sites are slowly fighting back, trying to get our side out there, praising those who fight the GOP and chastising those who want to capitulate to the corrupt ruling party. I have seen how the blogging base has nudged - slowly, painfully - a more courageous, less homogenized viewpoint into public awareness, sometimes indirectly, sometimes through direct grassroots activism.
Why do I read blogs? Because I feel like I'm doing something, fighting back, or at very least, watching the erosion of our civil rights with eyes wide open. (I'll be ready when they come for me in the middle of the night.) But in the end, if the general public doesn't get the message about the progressive movement, if the independents, the somnambulant and our own disengaged base do not hear us screaming in the blog wilderness, what hope do we have of saving our nation?
Are we getting our alternative voices out there? Or have the righties defined the debate beyond salvation?