Upon hearing that I'd started writing a blog, a Luddite pal asked me to describe this latest new-media phenom. Political bloggers, I explained, link to articles in traditional media. Then they rant and/or rave about them. "Great piece in the Journal." "The usual crap at CNN.com." Anyone can write one; you don't even have to use your real name. "Oh," he replied. "A blog is like a column without the responsibility."
No. A Ted Rall column is like a column without the responsibility.
Bloggers want you to know that there's a new sheriff in town. Edward Morrissey, writer of the right-wing blog Captain's Quarters, boasts to the New York Times: "The media can't just cover up the truth and expect to get away with it--and journalists can't just toss around allegations without substantiation and expect people to believe them anymore." And what are Morrissey's qualifications to police the media? When he's not harassing old-school journos like Dan Rather and CNN's Eason Jordan out of their jobs, Morrissey manages a call center near Minneapolis.
Captain Ed's qualifications are called into question by...a guy who draws cartoons. Ted Rall's qualifications to write a syndicated opinion column include a BA in history, and a certain way with crayons.
...the fact is that the political blogs are dominated by the hard right.
I hear tell of hundreds--nay thousands--of other leftwing blogs, but I fear they shall remain nameless...
...unless I happen to glance at the blogrolls of the aforementioned liberal blogs, which, apparently, Ted Rall doesn't have time to do, what with all the time he spends looking for references to himself on obscure rightwing blogs.
But when talk radio, cable television news, and all three branches of the federal and most state governments are under the control of the right, the blogger wolf pack merely serves to further ossify a dangerously out of whack ideological imbalance.
Isn't that cute? The Democrats lose a couple elections, and Ted Rall thinks things are "dangerously out of whack". He oughta try being a libertarian.
Here's a sample of online comments written by Republican bloggers: [1] "Ted Rall should be beat to within an inch of his life with a baseball bat." [2] "Every morning when I read the paper, I hope the headline will bring me tidings of [Ted Rall's] untimely demise. Untimely? Nah. Overdue." [3] "When I flush the toilet, it isn't considered violence, is it? So killing Ted Rall should be no different."
That's right, kids...Ted Rall pulls a quote from a discussion forum to illustrate the viciousness of those lying bloggers. And he calls it a comment "written by [a] Republican [blogger]". [sigh] Perhaps, in response, I should demonstrate the inherent racism of Cartoonists by pulling quotes from Mein Kampf. Because, you know, the medium is similar! They both use paper! And words!
It's hard to think of anything you can't find in abundance on the internet, but Ted Rall took three shots, and managed to make it look hard. Nice grouping, Ted.
Death threats against liberal pundits are commonplace among, and essentially unique to, the right-wing blogs.
Well, you'd hardly expect death threats against liberal pundits to be commonplace among left-wing blogs, would you? Still, if one went trolling through the comments to blogs, I'd imagine one wouldn't have a great deal of difficulty finding death threats against rightwing pundits. Or against the President. (though, admittedly, that last was more wishful thinking than threat; and it just in the NYTimes, and not on an actual blog)
And the GOP thinks that's OK. Nowhere can one find a responsible mainstream Republican to speak out against this hate speech.
One is hardly surprised that a vile comment on a very obscure blog, and a comment left to an old Dean Esmay post have not aroused the ire of prominent mainstream Republicans.
Borg-like, the various right-wing blogs simultaneously discuss the same stories, applying identical rhetoric.
Gannon, Gannon, Gannon, Gannon! [and....switch] ThereisnocrisisThereisnocrisisThereisnocrisis! [and....switch] Brit Hume Must Go! Brit Hume Must Go! [and....switch] Yes, we're all individuals! Yes, we are all different!
They create blacklists and urge their readers and fellow bloggers to threaten and harass their targets.
ChooseTheBlue.com -- " If each American who voted "Blue" in 2004 spends $100 in 2005 on products of a corporation that by reason of its employees' or connected political action committees' political contributions supported "Blue" over "Red," $5 billion in revenues would be shifted to "Blue" supporting corporations!"
But, you know, those damned Rightwing blogs and their McCarthyite shopping habits!
Bloggers are ordinary people, many of them uneducated and with nothing interesting to say.
[shrug] Maybe so, Ted, maybe so. But that didn't stop you.
UPDATE: Captain Ed weighs in, noting that "Success Is When All The Right People Hate You". And while I'm doing this update, I added/adjusted some verbage in my post, too. Just so you know.
That was too easy, Jon. Through the miracle of evolution, Ted Rall's ass is detachable therefor making it rather easy to hand it back to him on a silver platter, which you just did.
But when talk radio, cable television news, and all three branches of the federal and most state governments are under the control of the right, the blogger wolf pack merely serves to further ossify a dangerously out of whack ideological imbalance.
Talk radio: yeah, there are a lot of right-wing national shows. There are a lot of left-wing local shows. The medium isn't controlled by anyone, it's a free market, where the less popular shows disappear due to poor ratings. It's not PBS, Ted, we don't have to underwrite unpopular shows.
Cable television news: notice the carefully selected sample? Cable news audiences don't include CBS, NBC, or ABC. And cable's hardly controlled by the right. You have Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Fox may lean right, but CNN leans left. Not sure where MSNBC leans, as it's too boring to watch long enough to determine. Are CNBC and Bloomberg TV considered news? If so, they are pretty much middle-of-the-road. What about C-SPAN? That's hardly controlled by the right. And just what are the audience shares for each? I'd bet a buck or two that the regular broadcast networks attract more viewers than the cable outlets.
All three branches of federal government: The Supreme Court is controlled by the right? Since when? And how is this even remotely related to blogs?
As much as bloggers like to think the world is absorbed with them, it isn't.
TV and radio still have the hold - the blogs may blaze the trail, but TV and radio are the eight-lane highways. Rall addresses this point, mentioning the the "mainstream" counterparts to the conservative blogs:
Moreover, conservative blogs mirror their mainstream counterparts by applying a far angrier and more violent tone than that of their liberal foes.
"What counterparts?" Jon asks.
Well, Ann Coulter for one. Talk about mainstream, as one web site noted,
In the fifty days following Treasons release, Ann Coulter appeared on dozens of television shows: ABCs Good Morning America (1), The View (1); CBNs 700 Club (1); CNBCs Capital Report (1), Closing Bell (1), Kudlow and Cramer (1), CNNs Crossfire (2), Flipside (1),Live From the Headlines (3),Lou Dobbs Tonight (1), Larry King Live (1); CN8s Nightbeat (1); Court TVs Catherine Crier Live (1); Fox News Channels At Large with Geraldo Rivera (1), Dayside with Linda Vester (2), Fox and Friends (2), Fox Report with Shepard Smith (1), Hannity & Colmes (5), OReilly Factor (1), Special Report with Brit Hume (2); MSNBCs Buchanan and Press (2), Hardball with Chris Matthews (2), Lester Holt (1), Live with Alex Whit (1), Scarborough Country (3).
Needless to say, Coulter gets as much as or more air time than any other right-wing pundit. So does she have an "angrier and more violent" tone than that of her liberal foes? I report, you decide:
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." Ann Coulter, at Conservative Political Action Conference, 2/26/02
Here's another one:
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." - in a New York Observer interview, August 26, 2002. "Of course I regret [the previous quote]. I should have added 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.'" - in a rightwingnews.com interview, June 26, 2003.
Tell you what, when you show me one example of a left-leaning pundit with the visibility of an Ann Coulter who has called for killing reporters and editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal, or one who has reminded conservatives that they can be killed too if they aren't careful, I will agree that Rall is off the mark. (I won't hold my breath.) Until then, Checkmate Rall.
As much as bloggers like to think the world is absorbed with them, it isn't.
See, that's the sort of non-sequitur comment that annoys me. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Ted Rall wrote a column about the "exploding" popularity of blogs. Take it up with him. I'd venture to say that the vast majority of people don't have a clue what blogs are.
In any case, if you've paid the slightest attention to this blog, you'll know that I despise Ann Coulter. You'll know that I think she is an absolute cancer on political discourse, and that--together with Michael Savage--she represents the worst of the worst. Some might suggest that a guy who makes fun of 9/11 widows and a fallen US Marine might be as bad as her. Others might suggest that liberal talk show hosts who allege that President Bush was *behind* 9/11 would occupy similar territory.
I don't particularly care. My defense was of the blogosphere in general, and not Ann Coulter.
I googled the first sentence attributed to republican bloggers - and discovered it was lifted from a discussion forum, not a blog. Ted Rall's making up facts again. See the details at my blog.
checkmate in the parallel universe where spock has a beard, except that isn't where most of us dwell.
Non sequiters, tu quoque arguments and strawmen are you will get out of this guy, Jon.
He will find one quote for someone and then sneak in a whole nest of statements like the WSJ one that he probably got from some DU or indymedia craziness. Then later he quotes himself from these posts as if the fake info was always correct. That is one of his Modus Operandi.
While Jon and most of us would never defend Coulter, I could never, never understand anyone defending Rall's bile. For myself, I wonder what is different between you and the freepers you castigate. I can't see the difference, except the freepers gnerally do this sort of nastiness as humor, but not you.
MK -- "Tell you what, when you show me one example of a left-leaning pundit with the visibility of an Ann Coulter who has called for killing reporters and editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal, or one who has reminded conservatives that they can be killed too if they aren't careful,..."
Oh, I have every confidence that you can cheez your way around the qualifications, but I'm just wondering if you missed it when Alec Baldwin went ramblin' on the topic of stoning Henry Hyde to death along with his wife and children and then burning his house down.
Teddy grew to his present circulation in a world where he needed to please only editors. Your chance of getting a negative opinion of Teddy published, or even acknowledged, was zero. No wonder he is hyperventilating about the blogsphere. Finally his naked state is made public.
But... but... but... people are making fun of Ted Rall! Surely you can see the injustice of doing such a thing to man with the bravery to childishly insult the monolithic American imperialist military machine! Surely!
I think Teddy should sue Coulter. Anyone who has to beg his website visitors for the money to file the paperwork initiating the suit, has no business suing anyone. He should stick to whatever he does to steal his living. Finnegan
