Wedge Politics: Why the Huffington Post's Question Has Drawn So Much Attention

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 15:03


The anger that some establishment journalists have expressed over The Huffington Post being called upon during President Obama's first prime-time press conference deserves further explanation. It is, in part, as Atrios notes, about "where in the pecking order he's supposed to be," within the world of political media. And it is also, of course, about a perceived threat that new media outlets pose to more established ones. For years now, bloggers and other new media sources have been attacked as rabid, inexperienced, uninformed, arrogant, newcomers all as part of a campaign to keep bloggers, new media and grassroots types out of the political media establishment.

Beyond struggles over pecking order within the world of political media, attacks on bloggers, new media and other emerging grassroots types are also form of long-standing wedge politics designed to drive the progressive / Democratic coalition apart, and to keep the power center firmly in the centrist / corporatist wing.

More in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Wedge Politics: Why the Huffington Post's Question Has Drawn So Much Attention
Those who engage in attacks on bloggers must be aware, at least by now, that blogging and other new media is not simply a fad that will dissipate ala rock and roll or television before it. Traditional media is losing its audience and revenue streams at a rapid rate, and by now it is obvious to anyone involved that the self-publishing Internet is the main reason for this. As such, it is obvious--painfully obvious, for some--that it is simply not possible to shift the ever growing online audience back toward print, radio or other declining mediums.

So, since you can't stop the rise of the new medium, the only available tactics left are to discredit the emerging new outlets within the new medium that operates independently of your control (portray independent new media operators as rabid, inexperienced, uninformed, arrogant, newcomers) while simultaneously working to co-opt their tactics within that new medium (hire a bunch of rabid, inexperienced, uninformed, arrogant, newcomers to produce content for your outlet). So, for example, you attack the credibility of the largest independent new media political website, the Huffington Post, write diatribes about other large blogs such as Daily Kos, and pass Congressional resolutions chastising the largest online political organization, MoveOn.org, while simultanesouly hiring bloggers to produce content for your show, inviting them as guests on your programs, and trying to start email based activist organizations of your own.

All of this is done not because new media itself is despised, but because new media has allowed alternative power centers on the left-wing of the Democratic / progressive coalition to rise as challenges to established, and largely corporate, dominance. No one in the political and media establishment would attack the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, or Moveon.org if they were operating as supportive adjuncts to, say, the Blue Dog coalition. The reason they are viewed as dangerous and worthy of attack is because of the political views they espouse, not just because they are new media. As long as these new organizations thrive, they offer voters, activists and politicians potential insulation should they seek other avenues than corporate PACs, large donors, and conglomerated corporate media outlets.

Attacks on bloggers and new media outlets thus seek to discredit those outlets in the minds of enough people that no one in the political and media establishment would be willing to touch them with a ten foot pole. It is not about driving down audience. It is about driving down access to power for the left-wing of the Democratic / progressive coalition. The flip side of that coin is that it is about driving down alternative means of survival for members of the political and media establishment who seek to abandon or oppose the center-right corporatist establishment. It is wedge politics--an attempt to keeping the left-wing grassroots out of power, and keeping those in power in line by making sure they remain separated.

Fundamentally, that it ultimately why many in the political and media establishment were horrified when the Huffington Post was allowed to ask a question at President Obama's first prime time press conference, and why I shouted with joy when President Obama called on Sam Stein.  


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I think it is partisan and has nothing to do with blogs... (4.00 / 7)
The press seemed more interested in Gannon's sexual proclivities than in raising a stink about how he could have ever gotten the access he had representing an organization that wasn't even as organized as a blog.  I don't remember hearing anything from anyone in the White House Press Corp during that little scandal. There was no grousing or crocodile tears from those shysters.

These are the same people whose world is ruled by Drudge (another apt label from Atrios).  They don't care about pecking orders or bloggers or new media, they only care about carrying water for their corporate masters.  Drudge and Gannon carried water and therefore pass the test.


Oh I agree (4.00 / 6)
"They don't care about pecking orders or bloggers or new media, they only care about carrying water for their corporate masters."

Actually, I agree that it is about pecking order, and carrying water for their corporate masters. I tried to say as much in this post. I think it is both.

If I failed to make that clear, it is my own flawed writing that is at fault.


[ Parent ]
No, I thought it was clear. (4.00 / 2)
Aren't the two close to interchangeable? What signals corporate obeisance more than obsessions with the order laid forth by said masters?

[ Parent ]
Not only that.... (4.00 / 3)

 The "liberal" space in the trad media is almost always occupied by centrist hacks like Richard Cohen and Paul Begala and The New Republic's staff and a bunch of others who seem more concerned with mushy paeans to "bipartisanship" than in putting forth strong advocacy of liberal positions. Paul Krugman is the exception that proves the rule.

  Now, there's nothing wrong with Richard Cohen taking the weak centrist positions he does. He is what he is. The problem is that Cohen is put forth as a "liberal" opinion-maker, and his opinions are enshrined as an accurate portrayal of The Left in America, when it's anything but.  

 Pre-blogs, this worked to narrow the "acceptable" range of political discourse in America. But the lefty blogs have demolished that wall. There's a good reason some of the blogs' fiercest critics are the so-called "liberal" pundits -- they've been exposed. And now the White House has acknowledged as much.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
also about money (4.00 / 4)
and driving advertisers away from new media and blogs.

Don't forget the issue of money (4.00 / 5)
Traditional Media also has the incentive of attacking non-traditional media as a response to declining revenue.  It's always been the case that TradMedia never had the "far left" as consumers of their news, but this is about discouraging more conventional consumers of news from clicking on Huffington Post instead of CNN.com.

This isn't to say that money is the only reason, but it shouldn't be discounted either.  It simply dove-tails nicely with the threats to the currect power structure as a reason to trash Huffinton Post and Daily Kos.

Maybe you had that in mind as well, so forgive me if this simply comes across as repetitive.


It has to do with professional pride (4.00 / 2)
Journalists who went to journalism school are going to be dismissive of the unwashed masses of bloggers who they see as practicing psuedo-journalism (even if some of these bloggers are actual journalists).  There do exist avenues for people who didn't go to j-school to get into journalism, but blogging is not considered appropriate by the establishment.

I'm sure economists are equally skeptical of people without an econ degree pontificating on economics, lawyers about non-lawyers with legal opinions, scientists about non-scientists, military men about civilians.  You see it when an actor or director occasionally claims that a movie critic has no standing to criticize because he or she has never actually made a movie.  Call it a guild mentality or a closed shop.  Whatever.  The sense they have is that trained experts and not amateurs should be filling in the gatekeeper role of journalists.

I really don't think this is a partisan issue.  A very similar debate is occurring in the area of sports journalism. I've flirted with the idea of writing a diary on the similarities, in fact.  This clip featuring Bob Costas, Buzz Bissinger, and Deadspin's Will Leitch is an example.  

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


in that case they are self-delusional (4.00 / 3)
Because Sam Stein has every professional and academic journalist credential anyone could ask for.  

Actually, we should add incompetent to self-delusional, since journalists should know basic facts.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
What do they have to be proud of? (4.00 / 3)

  The "professional" journalist Chuck Todd asked one of the most ignorant and embarrassing questions ever aired at a White House presser. If a mere blogger had shown himself to be so profoundly clueless about basic economics it would have been a three-day feature on cable news.

  Sam Stein, after being called upon, asked Obama a probing and intelligent question. The legacy media got shown up, and they can't stand that.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Which Was Stupider? (4.00 / 2)
Chuck Todd or the steroid question?

My bet's on Todd, hands down.  But I wonder what others think.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Todd, by far (0.00 / 0)

  The steroid question was a throwaway, a missed opportunity by the (Very Professional And Serious) WaPo. But it wasn't as mind-numbingly stupid as Chuck Todd's  -- just kind of irrelevant.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
A Note from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (4.00 / 6)
I'm attending classes at the school, focusing on the subject of "Press, Politics, & Public Policy." (Side note: I'm actually in Nicco Mele's class right now, and he just had an Open Left post up, which is why I ended up reading this post).

The discussion about new vs. old media and the future of journalism is alive, but not doing that well. I've had classes with former editors of the Washington Post and Miami Herald, and seen countless "expert" reporters from just about every major news outlet in the country speak in brown bag discussions and small group meetings. The general anger felt towards blogs -- especially political blogs, like this one -- is amazing. But every time I press back on them, they end up getting stuck. Eventually, they'll point to the book "The Elements of Journalism" -- yet, the principles outlined therein are not separate from the principles held by many bloggers, including partisan political bloggers. My thesis is partially about this subject (Chris, I need to e-mail you about this again). I hope to have it featured here on OpenLeft and elsewhere when it's completed in a few months.

In the mean time, I appreciate this discussion. It's a great one to read.

Best,

Phillip Martin
Senior Adviser, Burnt Orange Report


blogging makes the elements easier (4.00 / 5)
1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.      
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.      
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

http://www.journalism.org/node/72

all of those elements are easier with the blogging business model which has much lower costs and doesn't depend on corporate support as much as the MSM. Chris is right, there are two things going on, one is politics and the left is more able to use the open media model where the megaphone is more distributed to people. The other is pecking order, a lot of the anger sounds like jealousy hiding behind important sounding justifications.


[ Parent ]
That definitely sums it up (0.00 / 0)
A few years ago the NYTimes Public Editor (I think it was the former WSJ guy) took reporters to the woodshed for their extensive (and often propaganda-promoting) use of "unnamed sources".  Now, nearly six years after the Iraq war started I still see the exact same problems.  Old media is burning.  Blogs added some gasoline to the fire, but they never lit the match.  They took care of that themselves.

[ Parent ]
elements or remains? (0.00 / 0)
1. As when fox news won a supreme court decision authorizing them (and all others) to lie in reporting?....This was related to two reporters termination after refusing to read false info regarding the hormone used to increase milk production.             2. If their first loyalty is not to the employeer, they sure act like it.                                        3. To easy, requires no comment.                          4. They do a good job at this during dem administrations, but acted like embelishing stenographers for Bush.       5. WE see this working as the msm switches from republican reporting rules to democratic reporting rules.           6. I believe they, by and large, do this.                  7. They seem to strive to avoid the significant, and make the trival interesting and relevent. That is why more and more of us go to the intertubes to find the significent.   8. See #7.                                                 9. The amount (lack?) of reporting on subjects that are not good for the corporate owners, and/or thier republican pawns indicate this is NOT allowed.                        The "liberal" N.Y. times printed the repub lie that Bill Clinton fathered a child with a black crack whore on the front page 4? times. But refused to call Bush on it when he lied to their face re. letting the inspectors in before bombing Irak....multiple times!

Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR

[ Parent ]
If you have access to editors and reporters (4.00 / 3)
of the old media, can you maybe pass on a message from me?

I subscribed to the New York Times for fifteen years before giving up on it. I have also given up on the Atlantic and the New Yorker. I am probably pretty representative of the kind of reader they've been losing.

And in my opinion, the lesson of the blogs is, "tell the truth." That's why the new media's market share is growing, because they tell the truth and people are starving to hear it.

Just look what we've been through, and how the old media behaved. When the Republicans were lynching Bill Clinton, where was the old media? Front and center, carrying torches. When they stole the election in the bloodless coup of 2000, the old media told us "move along, folks, nothing to see here." When they lied us into the Iraq war, the old media was there, waving pom poms.

I stuck with the old media through all that, gritting my teeth and grumbling, because there were no other options for news. But now there are.

The old media needs to learn to adapt if they want to survive, and that means they need to start telling the truth. If they do, we'll come back.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I had that experience (4.00 / 3)
I was in at a lunch where about 50 people had gathered (mostly old media -- either former writers, editors, or people who have taught "real" journalism) and asked the former online editor for the Washington Post (and current Managing Editor) about this very same phenomenon. I think my question was, more or less --

"Many have stopped reading newspapers because they don't trust you. What are you doing to bring those readers back?"

To which her reply -- and the general reply of the room -- was that "we never lie!" Couldn't even recognize the problem.

On the flip side, to be fair, there is one professor -- Maralee Schwartz -- who was a former political editor for the Post. She began that way, but since then we've developed a great back and forth and she's come around considerably. For what it's worth.


[ Parent ]
I'm A Journalist And A Blogger (4.00 / 2)
Of course the journalism I do is partisan (more in the generic sense), 19th-Century style advocacy journalism, so I'd be hated on two front, instead of just one.  But doing advocacy journalism only means you have more motivation to get the facts right, so I welcome their hatred on that front as well.

The point is, as a journalist, I both have editors and am an editor. As a journalist at a biweekly, I'm also extremely conscious of the difference involved in instant publishing.  There are other differences as well. But I don't think the differences in the different roles are really any bigger than the roles of being an essayist vs. a novelist or a short story writer.

In short, the debate is way overblown.  Not that there isn't a lot to think about.  But it calls for a lot more subtle observation and lot less wild over-generalization.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Pride and Access (4.00 / 3)
I fully agree that there are some elements of journalistic pride that come into play here.  Even the term "blogger" is thrown around as an insult these days and it comes from a certain segment of the corporate media that feel that bloggers can not be taken seriously.

With that being said, I also fully agree that this issue has to do with access.  Giving bloggers the same access as members of the mainstream press is, in their view, a way to cheapen their profession.  The irony in all of this is that bloggers are often providing more in-deapth analysis and ask more relevent questions than many of the beltway journalists who tend to promote the status quo. One only needs to look at the comments of David Gregory who feels that the press acted responsibly in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq and who also says that it is not the media's role to call out those who are not telling the truth.

This is clearly the viewpoint of not just David Greogory, but many in the "mainstream" media and if bloggers will challenge this mindset, then this is a good thing for journalism and democracy.


They've cheapened their own profession (4.00 / 3)

   My primary source of news is blogs. I read a bunch of them, though I only semi-regularly post in this one and on Kos. I read HuffPo and Digby and TPM and Greenwald and several others, and I am frankly blown away by the sheer quality of the analysis and opinion.

  Then in the afternoons at the gym, I'm subjected to CNN and/or Fox. And it's like reading a cheap romance paperback after having spent a couple of hours on Shakespeare. The depth of the fall is truly stunning. Wolf Blitzer in particular is completely unwatchable.

  If the trad media feels dissed, they need to look in the mirror.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
spot on analogy (0.00 / 0)
I hate cheap romance books .. they are idiotic and patronizing and completely out of touch with real people.

[ Parent ]
Jeff Gannon (4.00 / 2)
Maybe we on the left were outraged at the use of Jeff Gannon, faux blogger, to ask questions of Bush that Bush wanted asked, but I do not remember similar vitriol from Gregory et. al. directed at this manipulation and and sock-puppetry and management of the press conference as is now directed at Stein for asking a serious and not softball question. Our mainstream media is as dysfunctional as our mainstream financial institutions and bears tremendous responsibility for our current national problems, domestically and in foreign affairs.

Jeff Gannon (4.00 / 4)
gives the whole thing away.

A fake news site, "Talon News," using fake reporters, causes barely a murmur so  long as said fake reporter asks questions supportive of the powers that be. But a blogger asking real questions causes a meltdown.

They are all Jeff Gannons, now.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
on one level, I sense that it is bad for all of us as the print media goes belly up (4.00 / 1)
but I cannot tell you how happy it makes me feel on a gut level,

[ Parent ]
Hey, hey, my, my (0.00 / 0)
Those who engage in attacks on bloggers must be aware, at least by now, that blogging and other new media is not simply a fad that will dissipate ala rock and roll or television before it.

  Rock and roll has never died!

  I heartily agree with every other word of this post.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search