Blogging Article Out
August 31st, 2006 | by Craig |The blogging article we discussed earlier is online today.
As I predicted, I ended up on the cutting room floor, but in the context of the article, it’s just as well, I reckon. I can’t think of a way to say this without it sounding like sour grapes, but I know those of you who know me will know that they aren’t.
When I spoke with John, one of the first things he asked was if I was a Republican. I replied with an emphatic “no.” I’m guessing that Dave Budge and Sarpy Sam must have answered the same.
I wasn’t sure what to expect, but it sure wasn’t a paean to the Montana Leftosphere. I’m usually not given to crude turns of phrase, but it was a big wet sloppy BJ for those guys. The lone Republican gets described thus:
Burns can do no wrong in Coobs’ eyes, and he does his best to paint Tester as an out-of-touch liberal at every turn. Coobs has perfected the art of taking the overly simplistic nature of talk-radio analysis and adapting it to the Web.
Ouch.
I really think the story was trying to be about Democrats versus Republicans, and he could only get one guy to identify as a Republican.
I thought it was a good article, and chuckle-worthy in some places. Rob as a “shrill…liberal madman,” was pretty funny, especially knowing Rob as long as I have.
I consider most of these guys my friends, and am glad to see them getting some good press.
Seriously.
What? I mean it.
Quit looking at me like that.
11 Responses to “Blogging Article Out”
By W. Mark Felt on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
I think reporter John accomplished what he set out to do. He didn’t appear to be doing a story purely on blogging, he was doing a story on partisan politics, and how blogging impacts that. Nothing wrong with that.
First, he (and understandably so, what with deadlines and all) didn’t do a great deal of archive reading apparently if he was to pigeonhole Wulfgar as a ‘liberal partisan’. Anyone who would say they’d vote for Keenan before they’d vote for Morrison is no liberal partisan. He’s got a hell of an intellect and is much broader than that. So are the others mentioned.
There were glaring holes missing, even for the political bent. Sure I can see him leaving Sarpy Sam or Moos out of it as those don’t get too political (although it’s unfortunate to ignore them purely on the dearth of politics because they’re great sites) but to leave out Craig and Dave Budge is to miss some very articulate writing that isn’t from the progressive side.
That leaves the WRIMjobbers. As much as I admire Eric’s tenacity, the disgusting, racist, gutteral commenting turns what had the potential to be an interesting and thought-provoking site into a cringing joke. It’s unfortunate, and again, while I like Eric (seriously, he’s a great guy), the lowest-common-denominator level of discourse in the comments section should have taken WRIM off the map and shouldn’t be kept in the same company as LITW, Wulfgar, and the others (and this is coming from a dyed-in-the-wool, small ‘c’ conservative with libertarian tendencies). I hope that Eric doesn’t take offense, as none is intended, but that’s why I avoid the site.
Since I assume John will read this, let me be clear I’m not picking on him. He’s a good reporter, and I think he does a fine job overall. He’d do well to do an actual ‘blogging’ story at some point, and get past the surface of some of these folks to see that it’s not just Democrat versus Republican, or Burns versus ‘Jesus Christ, anyone BUT Burns’. Heh.
By Eric Coobs on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
No offense taken, it’s the choice I made. Either have a lively blog, or a dying blog.
Actually, with LITW and the other simply spouting negative Burns attacks, and Democratic talking points, I consider myself about two levels ABOVE them as far as discourse goes!
Thanks for the blurb - Eric
By Matt Singer on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
I got portrayed as a dyed-in-the-wool partisan. I’m partisan and proud of it, but if my party was in the state that the Republican Party is, I’d be more like you, Craig. My allegiance to the Democratic Party is one of convenience and necessity.
By JP on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Odd, I didn’t get called for an interview.
Although I suppose if I posted more than twice a month, I might be on a couple more blogrolls. That and my total avoidance of politics probably didn’t assist me in being noticed.
I think I’m just as happy to stay under the radar. Keeps the spam down and the googlebots at a minimum. So I got that going for me. Which is nice.
By Shane Mason on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
We all know Craig’s importance in the Montana blogosphere, so it was disappointing to not see him there. I would say the same about Moorecat (Pragmatic Revolt) and Scott Leslie (Wacko Lib). With that said, I think that Mark Felt is entirely completely accurate above. All of it.
I would add that I am more than happy about the quality of the coverage. Face it, I made it in there but it wasn’t all uber flattering. I take others ideas and add some research. I am a cheerleader. Ussually though I am just predictable. I know these things to be true for the most part. I am a lot of things, but unreal with myself is not one of them. I have had a few flashes of brilliance, but most of the time I just attack issues like a bulldog. What amazes me is that John nailed that. As I have said, he either did a lot of good research in the current posts or he is very astute at understanding the situations as explained to him in interviews. Probably a bit of both.
Here I am again though, serially blogging while watching Keith Olbermann in my cheerleading suit.
By Craig on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
By Cece on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Craig - I just wanted to say that while I don’t always agree with your view, I always appreciate your input.
By Craig's Spousal Unit on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
At the fact that Shane is watching Keith Olbermann, or that Shane is in a cheerleading suit?
j/k Shane. Heh.
By Sarpy Sam on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
Reading the article I see why I made the cutting room floor. Not being “wildely partisan” I didn’t fit with the article. Also my comment that political blogs exist to “rally the faithful” didn’t fit in with the articles premise that blogs are a force in politics. Oh well, I just calls them as I see them.
By Matt Singer on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
Sam, rallying the faithful is a way of having an impact. But I think you’re right that Adams decided to focus on the partisans. In ten years, after eight years of a D President and D Congress, this type of article might look awfully different.