In its editorial slam (here) on bloggers in general and RK (aka raisingkaine.com) and Lowell Feld in particular, the Roanoke Times tries to sully the reputation of bloggers. You see, bloggers aren't journalists! Duh. That's why bloggers blog. The RT does admit that most bloggers don't pretend to be journalists. Why would we? But the Roanoke Times(RT) misses the point. Bloggers exist because newspapers are not doing their job. And Lowell Feld is doing a great job of getting facts out there. In many respects, he does a BETTER job than the Roanoke Times. Through several blogging vehicles, Lowell has integrated news that is grudgingly carried, but often back-paged, or news that most so-called mainstream outlets refuse to carry at all. His energy policy articles are outstanding.
Where bias is concerned, everyone's got it. But the RT, in particular, lives in a glass house. You need only to peruse today's RT to find mostly Republican slant throughout the paper and headlines. On its editorial pages, Dan Radmacher does, to his credit, take on the extremist anti-tax crowd. But, without comment, he also gives front page Horizon Section coverage to the Baker-Christopher "solution" to the War Powers Act, which STILL makes it easier to go to war than to prevent a needless one. This is a Republican-lite proposal if ever there were one.
Yeh, Radmacher will take a moderate stance on some issues (as in today's editorial on gays in the military), but even in that editorial, the headline is phrased in the negative ("Gays wont hurt military). It's as if the paper staff struggle to get any progressive words out, even when the facts warrant.
Another outrageous headline today is at the continuation (on Horizon, p. 4) of a Trudy Rubin column. The Roanoke Times headlines: "Rubin: Iran looks forward to US election." You can see what the RT is up to here. Hint: Iran "wants diplomacy." We know McCain doesn't want that. So, this sounds suspiciously like the despicable 2004 mantra that a certain OBL "wanted" John Kerry to win. It's almost enough to make a person sick over breakfast. For once, I wish the editors of the paper would go back and look at how their headlines are framed. Or, maybe the headlines read as they were intended.
Also today, in a "news" piece purportedly about McCain's terrible week, the AP, and vicariously, the Roanoke Times, defame Democrats, by including a Hudson Institute-inspired despicable implication that Democrats are communists, and that John McShame said "yes" when asked if he'll hammer at Dems "Marxist" leanings. Here's the clip:
Friday: The calmest day of McCain's week nonetheless included one of those odd moments that cause some supporters to wonder about his political dexterity. A woman at the Hudson forum denounced the Democratic Party and asked McCain if he would "hammer away at their socialist, Marxist philosophy." His "yes" response drew wild applause.McCain later hailed the importance of bipartisanship, and even praised Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts liberal. Still, his breezy acceptance of the woman's description seemed at odds with his bid to woo Democrats dubious about Obama and resentful of Hillary Rodham Clinton's defeat.
Notice that AP writer, Charles Babington, includes this scurrilous language and only critiques it for being partisan. How about a damnable lie? How about political plant?
In Babington's inclusion of McCain's Social Security problems, he never mentions, as others have noted here at RK, that John McCain essentially called for Social Security privatization, by any other name. He's been caught on tape. Taking money out of the system for the private accounts of younger citizens will doom the system. He's trying to get them riled against their elders, but what he is suggesting will ruin several generations, and those into the future.
The bad-week article mentions the "whiners" story. But the Gramm statement is as Machiavellian a statement as any insider has ever uttered, which you'd never know because the article left something important out. Consider that Babington, and vicariously, the RT, don't tell readers that McCain's chief economic adviser, Phil Gramm, is the very same Phil Gramm, who ushered in (by slipping hundreds of pages into bills behind the other senators backs) the Enron and current housing scandals. Gramm, a designer of the greatest faltering of our economy since the Great Depression, is the economic "mind" behind John McCain! Phil and Wendy Gramm insinuated themselves into companies and exploited the very loopholes Phil created. And they ride along in the "straight talk express," while calling Americans whiners? BTW, where is the Roanoke Times? I don't think bloggers are the problem here.
Additionally, last week, the RT regurgitated a wire service story, wrongly asserting that Obama "flip-flopped." The brief purported that Obama had changed his position on the war. This is flatly untrue.
The RT complains that, because Lowell Feld earned a paltry check during a political campaign, that he is biased. (Ya think?) But it is a real leap to imply ethical conflicts when the point of blogging from the clearly-announced progressive point of view is precisely to air a perspective mostly missing from our "illustrious fourth pillar of our democracy," which isn't much of a pillar anymore.
On occasion, such as in its recent article on coal, the Roanoke Times will score a few hits. And, ironically, Lowell was gracious enough to recognize the paper for that article. Little did he know what today's paper would bring! Meanwhile, the Roanoke Times back-pages Obama wins and omits crucial information voters need. Instead, we get front-paged fluff and tear-jerkers designed either to pull heartstrings or fill individuals with their own self-importance. You too can be front-paged, but a Democratic primary winner, not so much. The Roanoke Times now has a "Red Carpet" photo presentation after music concerts. Ordinary Roanokers strut the red carpet like those celebs on Oscar night. Then, if they are "lucky," they get to see a photo of their ordinary selves in the Extra section of the paper. Then the media will lament we have a culture all about "me" and selfishness. I can't imagine why.
Newspapers are in the business of news, which is to say, they get paid. Except for campaign ads, they don't get paid directly by pols. They just take money through middleman and women, the corporate entities who advertise, and who generally want Republicans in office to exploit average Americans. In some cases, big news conglomerates also have lobbyists, and in such cases, money does change hands, ultimately, in the opposite direction--to soft money supporting people like McCain, who chairs an important Senate committee to many telecoms. As for the bigger dailies, their publishers are too busy partying (and golfing) with Republicans and fat cats to even see straight any more. Let's be real. The so-called mainstream media supports positions largely favorable to their advertisers. That's why, in recent years, WAPO has a difficult time finding a war it doesn't love. Ya gotta make the contractors happy. We would not be in Iraq, but for the fawning, cowardly coverage of the fiction that was the case for war.
The paltry income that any blogger (do they know that millions of bloggers earn flatly zero?) has ever raised is for honest, hard work. Indeed it is honorable work to have helped deliver Virginia from the likes of Macaca-George-Allen. (With the exception of the top levels of the campaign), paid employees of a campaign earn little for their hard-fought efforts.) Most bloggers have no direct connection to campaigns. Spending spare time (most have day jobs) researching and blogging is time consuming and not for the faint-hearted. It can take courage to speak out when the media-driven culture is to "watch what you say."
Meanwhile, back at RK, let's take a look at what Lowell did. He's the leader behind this website. He was the webmaster for the Webb campaign, where one of his primary jobs was fact-checking the opposition. Lowell declared openly this fact. Everyone knew it. But we do not know the wheeling and dealing of boards of directors of major newspapers. They never tell us. Did you know Donald Rumsfeld sat on the board of the Los Angeles Times shortly before he joined the Bush administration? This incestuous relationship between many big papers and politicians is as suspect as the revolving door that feeds lobbyists in and out of government. How can we trust that the "news" is really that? No wonder we went to war in Iraq for no reason.
Had the press done its job, we wouldn't need campaign fact-checkers. By setting the record straight, and doing perhaps the best fact-checking job I have ever seen, Lowell Feld performed an outstanding service that benefited Virginians and Americans. Along- the way, Americans are coming to see why we supported Jim Webb.
The Roanoke Times is also steamed that Lowell Feld gets to blog from the Democratic National Convention. This is a problem? Lowell Feld is an unabashed Democratic blogger, one of the best in the country. I'm proud that he is attending the Democratic Convention.
What of the so-called mainstream media? Currently, the media-love of John McCain is masking perhaps the biggest fraud (even worse than the media spun "Texas Miracle of George W. Bush") in modern times--McCain the so-called maverick who isn't. The Washington press corps is the worst perpetrator of this, but regional and local papers are often happy to jump aboard the no-straight-talk express and label it the opposite. They confuse access with doing their homework.
And we are terrible, terrible to point out the relevant fact that McCain is no maverick, that he's significantly changed positions on dozens of important issues (making claims of "flip-flopper" far too genteel a label); that, unless he's tightly scripted, and managed, has lapses in his thinking and speaking (witness the footage of his faltering answer about the insurance coverage of Viagra versus birth control); that he sings about bombing a country; and jokes about deaths of citizens of same country (the AP article from the RT did mention this last incident). Meanwhile, television media, newspapers, and even some letter writers to the Roanoke Times suggest that no one dare speak ill of the war-hero-McCain, on anything, never mind he left his true heroism in Viet Nam and that his foreign policy has morphed into a perverse and sadistic nationalism. Everyone here and most around the progressive blogosphere honor John McCain's service. But that cannot obstruct an honest look at the man's real record since then. He can hide behind years of learning nothing on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and make one stupid prognostication about foreign policy after another. It's a matter of judgment.
It is worse than outrageous that the same media which fed the lies of the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans," to destroy John Kerry, now pretends that no one can say anything negative on any subject about John McCain. Balderdash.
We will speak out. We'll proudly fact-check. The Bush-McCain-Gramm ruinous voodoo-economics 2.0 demands it. McCain's admission (I-don't-know-that-much-about-the-economy) demands it. His plan to upend medical insurance to the detriment of most Americans demands it. His anything-but-straight-talk demands it. His privateer mischief for Social Security demands it. McCain's hair-trigger anger demands it. Honesty in reporting the facts demands it. And, finally, love of country demands it! Someone, anyone, must get the facts to voters and fact-checking ammunition to partisans. But Lowell Feld does it better than most. And I'm proud to blog on RK.
He was the webmaster for the Webb campaign, where one of his primary jobs was fact-checking the opposition..
Lowell's title was "Netroots Coordinator"
the webmaster, in charge of the website, was Kevin Druff, IIRC.
Another bit of ignorance by the usually excellent Roanoke Times editorial page: actually, "embedded" blogs to the DNCC were selected for all 50 states. For Virginia, RK's application was selected, including 4 names. I guess Eric, James Martin, Ben Tribbett and I are all "getting special treatment from Democrats" (several other bloggers, including Kenton Ngo, will be at the convention as well).
What's really weird is that I've always praised the Roanoke Times editorial page as one of the most thoughtful in Virginia. What prompted this unprovoked and absurd attack? Got me.
While I believe the editorial was a bit off base, to accuse the RT of being a Republican leaning newspaper is a bit off base as well. In fact, quite often RK will cite RT editorials that support the views expressed here. Quite frankly, I believe your reading of today's RT and its headlines to be a classic case of spin.
They (editorial staff) often do more to balance than the rest of the paper. But if you seriously examine even just the headlines over time, you will see what I am talking about. Framing is important, and it is the frame, the perspective from which a story is told, that is slanted in so many stories.
In general, I think blogs strike a nerve. The media, especially the print media, see themselves as the guardian of the news. They are appalled that anyone would dare try to reinvent "news' or commentary. They rail about blog-writing style, spelling, or quibble about the minor. They hate the emotion or passion of bloggers, while trying (often unsuccessfully) to hide their won.
And, then in an amusing double-face, they create their won blogs. And they have their supporters, and apologists, and those who'll lament, along with journalists, that the print media seem to be on their way to extinction. I used to be one of them (supporters). Before, I have never questioned subscribing to a newspaper, but, lately, I feel guilty for the trees lost, because there is so little real news in the paper. Or the WAPO, or the NYT, or the Raleigh N and O. There are more ads than anything, and ads drive the business, don't they. In a way, the newspaper is already dead. The RT now gets delivered so late (almost 7 AM on many days), its pretty useless anyway.
PS They might also discover this funny little thing called the "internets." I believe it was invented by Al Gore. Or something.
In a nutshell, you could have written this editorial without a significant number of changes, though presumably choosing to single out a blogger on the other side of the aisle. :)
I have been on the receiving end of a fair number of newspaper articles in the latter half of my time on earth. There have been a half dozen or so that have angered or alarmed me, that I thought were unfair or nasty. But in every case, when I went back and read the article months or years later, I've been unable to find what it was that I found so offensive. Since I had that realization, I've tried to be aware of that effect when I read an article that is directly or obliquely about me.
This is an article that you will look back on in a year or two and, likewise, wonder what the fuss was about. I promise.
The editorial is a weak suggestion that we should only trust Roanoke Times staff employees who are "real journalists" and beware of bloggers who may be opaque charlatans.
Ironically, they highlighted Lowell's prominence in both the Virginia and National blogging communities and even promoted RK's domain address.
But the implication is blogs are biased and they (at the RT) are not. Which is why, I think, it's important to consider some of the ways they are. The editorial page is usually (not always, sometimes it is 3/5 or even 4.5 conservative). One in a while it tilts the other way. But it's interesting to note the different standards afforded Dems v. Republicans. Headlines, even in the editorial pages are informative. Some are really declarative when they sit atop a misleading LTE. That's a slant. If McCain falsely accuses Obama of a flip-flop and the headline is: "Obama Flip-Flopped" or even "McCain: Obama Flip-Flopped on X,"there is a GOP slant because the declarative gives credence to the McCain line. The paper should have examined whether or not there was one, and reported such, not just parroted McCain's spin.
Ironically, they highlighted Lowell's prominence in both the Virginia and National blogging communities and even promoted RK's domain address.
I don't think that's ironic: I think it's precisely what they intended to do. They picked out Lowell and Raising Kaine because he and this site are prominent in the world of blogging in Virginia, and because Lowell is increasingly prominent in the political world.