Such A Difference...

Perhaps you've noted the journaistic catfight that broke out this week between Paul Krugman, David Brooks and (oy veh!) Bob Herbert over the claim that - *gasp!* - Ronald Reagan really was a racist. It's a perfect example of why newspaper circulation is in a freefall, and why the New York Times seems hellbent on leading the whole pack of 'em, lemming-like, over the cliff of their own irrelevance.

The last time I checked - which was earlier today - we were at war in the Middle East, flirting with some potentially serious economic turbulence, and in need of some common-sense solutions to a whole series of policy issues ranging from taxation to energy to immigration. Oh yeah, and Ronald Reagan was still dead.... And had been for over three years.

But instead of having three of the nation's (supposed) leading public intellectuals, who are published by two of the nation's (supposed) leading newspapers, providing us with insight and thoughtful discussion of - well - issues, we've been treated to a multi-day, multi-column argument about whether a dead president has been conclusively proved a virulent racist by the use of exactly two words in a speech delivered over a quarter of a century ago.

Riveting stuff, eh?

Yeah, I'm on the edge of my seat as well. Was Ronald Reagan really a bad guy? I mean, what could be more important? Well, to start with, a whole lot of things are a whole lot more important. But you'd never guess it by reading those three boobs. That's because the key word in all this, of course, is the word "suppose". As in, "These are supposed to be leading public intellectuals with supposedly prestigious newspapers who are supposed to be writing something of import about the issues, one supposes, we are supposed to actually care about."

Right.

Bottom line? Bob Herbert's dumber than a potted plant. He's the personification of journalism's Peter Principle in action. Paul Krugman is one of the finest economists of his generation, although you'd sure-as-shit never know it from his columns in the Times. That none of Pinch's editors has told Krugman to stick to economics or shut the fuck up is simply one of many reasons why investors not named Sulzberger can't unload their Times stock fast enough. And then there's David Brooks. He thinks John McCain - the John McCain of Keating Five and McCain-Feingold fame - has lately acquired the status of secular saint. Enough said 'bout David.

Given how gratuiously stupid and irrelevant the Krugman-Brooks-Herbert circle jerk is, you'd think it would provide the political blogosphere a perfect opportunity to demonstrate its' claimed intellectual superiority by spending time on weightier matters. Right? I mean, New Media is what matters in the 21st Century because it, rather than Mainstream Media, can deliver the sort of intellectual range and depth regular journalism can only dream of. Right?

Well... Not really. What the political blogosphere is actually busy demonstrating - yet again - is that when faced with the choice of thinking for itself or following a mob of half-assed journos, it chooses to run with the mob. Then again, for a whole lot of bloggers, the ugly and not-so-secret truth of the matter is this: The only worse than being a Mainstream Media journalist is not being a Mainstream Media journalist. Evidently half an ass is better than no ass at all.

I suppose on some intellectual level an argument about Reagan and racism could be considered interesting. And I suppose there is some sort of forum where discussion and debate on the issue would be considered appealing. But as one who resides outside the Chattering Classes, my immediate response is simple:

I don't give a fuck.

That I don't give a fuck isn't due to any lack of intellectual curiosity. Nor is it due to any desire on my part to avoid examining - for good or bad - some of the political choices made by Ronald Reagan is fashioning his political coalition. Not at all. I don't give a fuck because what Krugman, Brooks and Herbert are offering has nothing to do with analysis - either political or historical - of Ronald Reagan or his presidency. Krugman and Herbert simply want to brand Reagan, and by extension, all Republicans, as racists so they can indulge in a bit of liberal self-loving. Brooks, on the other hand, doesn't want to admit that neither Reagan nor the Republican Party were above racial politics when it came to moving conservative Democrats into the fold.

Note to Paul, David and Bob: The Republican Southern Strategy was discovered a while ago. It has been discussed. Honest.

Beyond that, I don't give a fuck because it's way down on my list of things to care about. My daily worries revolve around far more fundamental issues: War, immigration, taxes, health care and the economy. And what I really need out of someone - and I don't give a shit which of the two Medias gives it to me - is clear, complete, intelligent and unbiased analysis of the issues and the policy alternatives for dealing with those issues. All I've learned this week is that neither Paul Krugman, David Brooks or Bob Herbert have the horses under the hood to deliver anything other than dimwitted partisan hackery.

Bottom line? Fuck 'em. All three of 'em. And fuck their little circle jerk as well. I just couldn't care less.

Of course, it could just be that my expectations aren't realistic. Spending lots of time and energy on grappling with complex real-world issues can be an unrewarding business, as many bloggers have discovered. That's because very often serious blogging about weighty issues is every bit as much work for the reader as it was for the blogger. Let's face it, for a lot of folks who consider themselves thought leaders or whatnot, that sort of thing is a no-no. They're under the impression they're thought leaders because they dick around at political blogs. Reality seems to be somewhat different, however, to the adults in the room...

So for all the hoo-ha about the superiority of the political blogger and his readership, it appears that neither seems to have actually demonstrated said superiority in practice. You really don't have to put in all that much time at any of the most popular political blogs - either Conservative or Liberal - before the simple-minded partisanship of both blogger and reader becomes obvious. It's also hard to ignore that many of them are painfully uninformed about the issues upon which they boviate.

It's hard not to be cynical about the political blogosphere when you have Michelle Malkin squawking about "Arabs buying our ports" when ports aren't sold, or when Josh Marshall discovers a "secret Bush plan" to bankrupt Social Security in the text of a public speech. Both suggestions are infantile and ignorant... But what is important is that neither blogger is, evidently, worthy of scorn for their foolishness. In the real world, and by that I mean outside of the world of the two Medias, someone as silly as a Malkin or Marshall would simply be laughed out of the room.

In the final analysis, the fact that there is no real penalty for being half-assed is the one great distinction that does not exist between Old Media and New. Journalism allows it, and so does blogging. Until political bloggers decide differentiating themselves from - rather than being incorporated into - Mainstream Media journalism is the order of the day, the power of New Media and the political blogosphere will remain the chimera it is.

An Aside: It is worth noting that the real growth in the political blogosphere appears to be over. Despite whatever hucksters like Roger Simon might say about growth of readership, it is apparent that the political blogosphere's share of internet traffic is either static or contracting. Take a look at these two graphs of some of today's most popular political sites:

Notice anything striking? How about this: In terms of "Reach" (the percentage of global internet users who visit each of the graphed sites), present levels are at about the same level as early 2005, and in nearly all cases are well below late 2005 to mid-2006 levels. Yes, to an extent the 2006 mid-term elections can account for such behavior, but that doesn't fully explain why Reach levels are now at or below the levels of early 2005... It appears real growth has ended. I would argue that lack of content is the culprit.

Comments

[King Groundhog]

Concerning Ronnie:

Cut and run--Beirut
Diversion expert--Grenada
$700-hammer buyer
Immigration specilalist--was it 1986? Reverse-racist, maybe. First American president of Mexico.

Thanxx, Ronnie.

[Dennis The Peasant]

As I was saying...

[Dan from Madison]

A truly outstanding post, Dennis.

[Carl from Chicago]

A very good post... although I might quibble about whether or not Krugman is such a great economist. He doesn't seem to know that taxes impact the economy or that the government's "dead hand" is a pox on the economy. I will agree that he knows far less about politics than he does about economics. Great stuff.

[Flyby Reader]

I'd say "more like this, please," if it weren't for this all-too-accurate quote: "That's because very often serious blogging about weighty issues is every bit as much work for the reader as it was for the blogger." This post, your earlier stuff on the ports, and even the Ohio election analyses best show some of the good of blogs. But I can understand you might want to have some readers . . .

[dsquared]

Not sure about how "Reach" is calculated, but in comparing 2005 with 2007, you don't necessarily want to count Alexa expanding into China and Korea as declining influence of US blogs in US politics.

[Dennis The Peasant]

dsquared-

Point taken.

As Alexa only offers global (as opposed to domestic) traffic statistics, there isn't any real way to factor out differentials between the growth rates in traffic. As I didn't have the time to look for meaningful statistics elsewhere, I just made a bunch of assumptions that allowed me to "prove" my point.

I guess I'm closer to being a professional journalist than I thought.

[Satanam in computatrum]

For what it's worth, I am a regular visitor here for three reasons:
- You're obviously smart as hell
- You're damn funny
- I hope to catch the occasional analysis on the order of Dubai Ports World and the Ohio elections, particularly considering the expected delivery (see the above two reasons)

But that's just me...

[andrew]

Brooks is not a very good columnist usually but I have to give him credit for shooting down an old Leftie talking point that's untrue.

"What the political blogosphere is actually busy demonstrating - yet again - is that when faced with the choice of thinking for itself or following a mob of half-assed journos, it chooses to run with the mob."

Maybe this is happening in blogs that I don't read but I haven't seen any evidence that this story has gotten all that much attention.

[Dennis The Peasant]

It's received a lot more play on Lefty sites, including KOS (and Markos specifically), and Crooks & Liars. Both Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum have weighed in as well. On the Right, Tom Maguire has spent some time on it. Lots of other sites have linked to the whole thing as well.

[Temple Stark]

Excellent post. it started off slow with some blather about a dead guy and almost dead-guys and ended with some clearly salient points about the uselessness of the political blogosphere discussing much of value at all.

I would add a wrinkle. For all the talk about transparency needed in political reporting, it's done jack shit for the sycophants covering their pet cause / person / party like a retarded bulldog on a lame chihuahua.

If we're talking productivity, the energy co-efficiency rating is extremely low.

- Temple

[David N. Scott]

I agree with this. Seems like any hope of discussing anything that matters in the slightest has basically been thrown away in favor of an unending cat/slapfight. Too bad. Waste of a free media.

[TmjUtah]

Of course, with out (sometimes) political blogs, we'd never have seen your post, Dennis.

There's value in almost any communication. Whether it's waving across a pond to point out the shark fins or skewering maroons at The Paper of Record (contraction) on a self-published platform in a virtual Hyde Park, the act of information transfer always influences and sometimes even brings great changes to the subjects of attention...

Or you get a lot of run - on sentences.

I disagree with the contention that the political blogosphere is too much a slapfight. It's what the market demands it be. And honestly, just how much serious analysis does it take to figure out the crop of weasels racing toward November, anyway?

I stopped watching network television when I realized that half the content (being generous here) consisted of reporters interviewing each other.

And then I got hooked on blogs. How freakin' sad is THAT???

Keep up the good work, Dennis. Tremendous post you have here. I look forward to seeing you published again, ala your Dubai report. GREAT stuff.

[Terrye]

Yeah, but what is the market? I do not know anybody but me who actually reads political blogs. It is not as if there is some cross section thing going on here.

I think that too often the group think we see on blogs makes them too tedious. And there is no real discussion. Just try to disagree with the Tancredo/Malkin cult when it comes to issues like immigration. It is like dealing with the Borg, resistance is futile.

So people who do not fit the group think, just don't bother.