Blogging the right
Being a blogger, I guess I would be remiss in not instantly offering some thoughts on John Locke’s blog conference, held in Greensboro this morning. (You can find other views from Ed, Fec, and Guarino.)
In no particular order:
- Scott Johnson of the Powerline blog, famous for the post that debunked the CBS story on Bush’s national guard service, spoke as the keynote. What struck me about how he compiled the information in that post is that it was really a great experiment in distributed reporting like Jay Rosen is attempting.
- Johnson told the audience several times that he the national media serve as an arm of the Democratic Party. That sense of mistrust was shared by many members of the audience. Interesting to me about this is that you could hear the flip side of that argument – the press as a tool of the GOP – if you get a group of liberal-leaning bloggers together. I obviously have a dog in this fight, but I don’t think either view is healthy or accurate. It’s what happens when very serious and very real screw-ups on my industry part mix with natural suspicions and complaints about press coverage.
- Fec wrote in his review of the session “They came to GSO, but didn’t know anything about us.” I would say you might quibble with that because Sam Hieb lives here and was on a panel. But the panelists were very much focused on national politics, both in terms of their interests and the scope of their writing. It did not seem many of them know about the Greensboro blogging scene or that any of them have much of a sense what a locally-focused civic blogging scene looks like. That’s kind of weird, as Mary Katherin Ham observed, since conservatives believe in smaller federal government and more power at the local level.
As a final note, I’ll wonder out loud whether hold a “conservative” blogging conference doesn’t feed the balkanization of our media market and information stream. If conservatives only trust conservative blogs, liberals the liberal and few folks mistrust everyone, how the heck is anyone going to be able to talk to one another?
All in all, it was an interesting morning. And even though I was one of those MSM guys everyone was griping about, I didn’t feel too despised.
Now for Converge South next weekend.
Comments (12)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Thanks for coming, Mark. We appreciated having you there.
Posted on October 7, 2006 4:46 PM
Mark, it was great to finally have the opportunity to meet you and chat.
I found it interesting that John Hood and perhaps a couple of others were trying to nudge some of us toward more local and state-level blogging, although as you noted, the activities of so many are focused exclusively on the national scene. This is unfortunate, as the activities of state government merit the attention of people outside the Triangle metro area.
I appreciate what you do with this blog.
Posted on October 7, 2006 4:56 PM
John: It was a pleasure.
Joe: It was good to meet you too. Keep up the good work.
--binker
Posted on October 7, 2006 6:22 PM
It was a little disheartening to hear of a "conservative" bloggers group off-shoot of the larger GSO blogging community, although freedom of association is still a right (or was, when I woke up this morning). As one of those probably labeled a liberal blogger, I don't see the politics of a blogging group affecting the discussions bloggers have. We talk about everything.
I'd hate to see a division in the GSO bloggers based on national politics when there's so much more we have to do in our local area, and in venues in which we've had a lot of success through forcing transparency in a variety of government, police, and related icehouse spheres of interest.
See you next weekend - don't forget to join us for barbecue in the Aycock neighborhood as a prelude to the big day. We're excited.
Posted on October 7, 2006 7:31 PM
Sue:
I think that may be something GSO has gotten right, purely by accident mind you, but right all the same. I think the various bloggers, lurkers and other web critters do get along pretty well together despite their various temperaments and leanings.
I've been pondering this a lot today. Perhaps it is the national focus of this subset that causes them to seek out a "conservative" function, sort of like how the liberal set sought out Kos this summer. The tenor of national politics has become so rancid that people who play in that sandbox might feel they need some better assurance of safe haven ... their community is based on political affiliation. While on the GSO scene, the community is based on, well, a community.
My two cents. Everyone else probably got there light years ahead of me.
Posted on October 7, 2006 11:20 PM
Mark,
I honestly intend to sound unapologetically cynical. Covering the City Council, School Board or the County Comissoners is like blogging/repoprting a Notre Dame v. Little Sisters of the Poor football game. How many times have reporters from the News & Record heard the Mayor say " Council Will Vote " and rarely a dissenting vote is recorded. The same at the school board or Commisioners meetings. The votes are somewhat closer but nonetheless consistently for spending, more spending and tax increases. Has any local blogger spoken out against the bond issues that will affect property owners for the rest of their days ? All I see in the N & R are stories pimping for approval of the bonds and you are not " community " minded unless you join with those that think throwing money at every social problem is the only solution. Perhaps there is something unique, new or different to blog about on the local scene but I don't see it now or in the future as long as we have the district system. SOSDD
Posted on October 8, 2006 1:45 AM
Fred: I will be equally unapologetic. That statement is willfully ignorant on several counts.
There is no doubt that covering meetings isn’t the most edge of your seat exciting thing that one ever does. But it’s a fraction of the work our local government reporters do. I’ve not been involved in any of this, but how many of the stories involved in the Chief Wray case or regarding problems with animal licensing and at the animal shelter came from meetings? The answer is very little.
Margaret, who has covered the bonds well, has used her blog and other outlets to reach out to bond opponents. There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of people writing or speaking out against the bonds. If you are and know others who are, then step up. Has any local blogger spoken out against the bond issue? Yes, at least two have questioned the bonds. Go have a look at what Joe has written.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said the conservatives as Saturday’s conference pretty much ignored local blogging. Here you folks have an outlet to make your case, and have a big impact on a local level. But you ignore it, to your political peril. I’m sure the bond supporters and folks on the left side of the political spectrum appreciate that.
Posted on October 8, 2006 10:16 AM
Mark : The N & R is 100%, editorially and the news side even more, for the tax increases the bond issues will translate to if passed.How can any group opposing them match the free pimping for these bonds by your paper.
Your reporters were sheepishly submissive and complied with the Mayors dictate. " No hard question" at the press conference . Pathetic !
Yes Joe has spoken out but appears to be a voice in the wilderness. With only 15% of registerd voters going to the polls the bonds by virtue of the PAC turnout , will pass. This egalitarian crap will stop some day, hopefully, short of a revolution.
Willfully Well Informed,
Yours truly
Fred Gregory
Posted on October 9, 2006 8:02 PM
Fred, I'm confused. Did you want to have a conversation about blogging or about the coverage of the News & Record?
As you know, the news side of the operation takes a position on matters of public debate, especially those which they cover. I have no idea what the editorial depatment may do in regards to the bonds.
I'm going to leave your comment up here, because frankly it makes you look bad while not offering much by way of anything that a reasonable reader could mistake as informed criticism. However, I will ask you in future to both watch your language and if you're going to accuse people of something to actually come bearing evidence.
As for the rest of your two comments, you've obviously talked yourself into some views that I'm not going to change here.
Take care.
--binker
Posted on October 9, 2006 8:33 PM
As for the editorial side of the paper, Alan writes that they are going to offer their endorsements on Sunday. While I don't know, the tone of his blog post makes it sound as if they will advocate against at least one of them.
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/outloud/archives/2006/10/bond_endorsemen.html
Posted on October 9, 2006 8:37 PM
Ok . They will oppose the Civil Rights Museum. Yawn and whoopdedoo !!
My language. Please, Mark ,you are nit picking. The C word is widely used in today's conversation and is no bomb. In the dictionary another word meaning rubbish/nonsense but take it any way you want bucko.
My evidence about your compliant reporters: How 'bout the audio of that so called press conference .
So you are going to leave my comment up. That's mighty big of you. Sounds you moderate and ban some people. Not uncommon at some of your other thin skinned colleague's blogs.
Really you are becoming like a troll on your own blog. Maybe it's Raleigh that is disturbing your good nature. Certainly couldn't be my civil but tough comments. Gee, at least I hope not
Cheers
Fred
Posted on October 11, 2006 12:20 AM
Fred:
I've only banned spammers to this point.
As for the rest of it, you may be right, but I don't think so. As for my good nature, ask anyone who knows me well: it doesn't exist.
--binker
Posted on October 11, 2006 9:21 AM