1

This is an interesting case: like the problem of a guerilla or terrorist group facing off with a conventional military power, the blog "threat" is asymmetrical. Coleman's mistake is like those of 19th-C colonial powers that failed to adapt to the strategic realities of asymmetrical warfare: he commits his reserves in a frontal assault on one concentration, only to find himself enveloped by numerous others who he did not *directly* attack, nor can he damage by the attack; but who certainly can and did attack him in return.

It's a mistake for bloggers to start buying their own propaganda, though. This stuff only works so long as the blogosphere is, in fact, a decentralized, highly-motivated "margin" with grievances or at least strongly-worded differences from an identifiable "center." When we begin to speak of a blogospheric "center" or imagine (or worse, try to create) a "consensus" of what a blog is, does, and says--well, then we are just the smaller conventional force.

So long as the Colemans of the world have to rant against one blog, only to get hit by dozens, we'll keep scoring points. When they wise up and stop playing our game, or when we get dumb and start playing theirs, then things will get . . . interesting.

Cheers,
PGE

2

This is an exciting time to be a blogger. I see endless possibilites...

3

"Together these sites have a daily hit count of over 215,000 while the Star-Tribune itself has a circulation of approximately 380,000."

Actually, that comparison is flattering to te Star-Tribune. It means that the Star-Tribune *delivered* 380,000 newspapers, not that 380,000 people read them. A lot of people read parts of the newspaper but not others. I suscribed to that paper for several years, but couldn't have told you that Coleman was on their staff. (I cancelled it in disgust earlier this month..... and I'd been skipping over most of it for weeks.)
By contrast, anyone who hits a blog may reasonably assumed to have read it. (Of course, some people hit more than once a day.)

4

Joe, I am a little skeptical of the "hit count" number you present. I think it is higher, but it could also be contested that it is lower.

First, between Instapundit, Powerline, NRO, Hewitt, Volokh and others, it seems that 215,000 is a humble estimate. I was under the impression readership was higher. Additionally, while daily readership may be lower, blogs, unlike newspapers, can be read sporadically, (i.e. once a week, twice a week, etc.), and so the daily hit count may only be half or a third of the total viewership.

Second (to refute myself) the only problem with this data is reader overlap. For instance, I am counted as a uique user at each of these blogs, and their readership is probably composed of monumental cross-blog overlap. 215,000 (I am not sure how the number was calculate) could be the product of these cross-blog readers.

Finally, it is almost certain that intensity and sympathy lie with Powerline. Blog readers will automatically side with them because of the shared medium whereas many newspaper readers won't care, won't think about it too much, or won't agree with the author. Additionally, bloggers will read the essays more carefully. This is what they do:)

It seems to me that Powerline, Instapundit, and others have fallen for a tremendous publicity stunt. If I were writing a syndicated column for a medium-sized newspaper and wanted to secure my position and quadruple my readership, I would do just what Coleman has done. In one fail swoop he has garnered international attention and assured that hundreds of thousands of people will read his columns in the future. Make the right enemies and your fame will pass far more slowly. Look at Michael Moore, Ted Rall, etc.--men who would be has-beens if not for the persistent attention of those who hate their shoddy work and spend so much time exposing it.

5

John,

I'm not sure if I agree with you on your idea that this was a great publicity stunt for Coleman and the Startribune. I plan on dropping my subscription to the paper and switching to the St. Paul paper. I will be sure to tell them that my reason for the switch was Nick Coleman's latest column, and the failure of his editors to properly oversee his work.

6

This was also on Little Green Footballs yesterday. LGF got 83,000 unique hits yesterday.

7

Joe,

Interesting column and I like pgepps' addition. Very intriguing. It is an interesting time to be a blogger. I think we do have to recognize our limitations and not overreach, however. A natural extension of pgepps' insight is that we have to focus on doing that which we do well. In addition, we need to be as vigilant in policing our own as we are the MSM--in other words, we need to check blog statements as closely as the Rather Memos were checked. That happens fairly routinely, but we need to continue to be vigilant.

As for hit counts, this has always been a question. My sitemeter does not log my own url in multiple times when I visit my site during the day, so I'm not sure if the crossover is as great as John might suggest. However, I am not certain of how the technology works, so I cannot refute what he says either.

As for the Strib's overall readership, I would probably accept that number, as circulation both over and underreports readership. It overreports to the extent it counts newspapers in bins and in stores that are not purchased and read. It underreports, however, to the extent it does not count online readership. I gave up my hardcopy of the Strib years ago--it is an execrable newspaper. However, I have to keep plugged in to the local business community and local events in general, so I read it online. That probably is not counted in the circulation numbers.

We live in an interesting point in the information age. One key challenge going forward, for both MSM and the internet sources, is to find ways to ensure the authenticity of what is being stated. A second challenge is to adequately disclose bias--something that bloggers do much, much better than the MSM.

8

John, don't forget - a) the star-tribune also has a website, and b) newspapers have pass-along readership (i.e., families reading a single copy).

9

Not to get too far off-topic, but the Strib went 2 for 2 yesterday with this appalling editorial: http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5160305.html

It's part of the "let's blame Bush for anything and everything whenever we can" game. The events in the Indian Ocean are horrible enough, this sniping to score political points goes far beyond the pale. Any person's particular reaction to events that are somewhat beyond the ability of most humans to fully understand and incorporate immediately should be beyond criticism. Unfortunately, as we saw with the criticism of Bush over those 7 minutes after he was alerted of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a fine understanding of human nature is not something that liberal commentators like to trouble themselves with.

10

Good points, John - except for the last -
"...men who would be has-beens if not for the persistent attention of those who hate their shoddy work and spend so much time exposing it"

- as this is the mathematics of the argument that says; we are creating more terrorists by actively engaging terrorism, and should therefore be less active.

Coleman's line of reasoning is wrong regardless of how many or few come across it, and we are right to actively oppose it.

11

Let me drop another thought into the mix.

I am a reader, not a blogger. But since discovering the BLOGs earlier this year, I now get most of my news from this source.

When a flap like this one comes up, I go from Powerline to Mr. Coleman's site to check the facts. Then if I am concerned enough I can let people like Mr. Coleman and his editor know what I think.

Mr. Coleman's hard copy readers would find that too hard to do. His web site does not contain the cross links that would send me to Powerline, and in fact since he would have the worst of this exchange he wouldn't do it anyway.

I know from extensive experience with local officials that they actually get very few calls and letters on any particular subject. I suspect that a newspaper of 300,000 circulation actually gets many fewer cards, letters and emails than you might imagine.

While the old saying among politicians is that there is no "BAD" publicity, that is in large part whistling past the grave yard. Ask Dan Quail.

It is possible that the reaction of people like me did some invisible damage below the water line.

12

Exactly right, Allan. The creature is not only called "fame", it also goes by the name "infamy".

13

Coleman has shown that he's obviously a 3rd rate hack in a Dan Rather wannabe mode. He has shown that he has all of Dan's tendencies, but none of Dan's talents, and so remains as clueless as a box of rocks. He's basically a TSM troll....nothing more, and should be accorded all of the contempt due his lowly place in life. The sad part is that he uses up oxygen, and that's not good for the rest of us.

14

I'd decided weeks ago to cancel our Strib subscription b/c of it's one-sided reporting. The staff on the Strib is a club that lives in downtown Mpls. and has no clue as to how the rest of the metro area thinks. Yes, they have a "Strib South" but "like hires like" and the Strib, as well as most MSM, hires people who think like they think. The American people lose.

15

Since I read most of the blogs you mention, it's not quite right to just add everyone's hits per day together. OTOH, 380,000 Nick C columns don't get read everyday either.

16

John Joe, I am a little skeptical of the "hit count" number you present. I think it is higher, but it could also be contested that it is lower.

The numbers may be on the low side. Not everyone’s exact number’s were available so I erred on the side of caution and went with the lowest assumption possible. I would rather people factor in a higher number themselves than think that I purposely inflated them to make the blogosphere's side look better.

Additionally, while daily readership may be lower, blogs, unlike newspapers, can be read sporadically, (i.e. once a week, twice a week, etc.), and so the daily hit count may only be half or a third of the total viewership.

That’s a good point. These posts will be read for several days (perhaps weeks) after Coleman’s column is forgotten.

Second (to refute myself) the only problem with this data is reader overlap. For instance, I am counted as a uique user at each of these blogs, and their readership is probably composed of monumental cross-blog overlap. 215,000 (I am not sure how the number was calculate) could be the product of these cross-blog readers.

I started to include something pointing that out. I suspect that there is a great deal of cross-blog readership that may lower the overall unique reader numbers. But I think it has the offsetting effect of adding to the “stickiness” of the story.

It seems to me that Powerline, Instapundit, and others have fallen for a tremendous publicity stunt. If I were writing a syndicated column for a medium-sized newspaper and wanted to secure my position and quadruple my readership, I would do just what Coleman has done.

That’s certainly possible but it would be a remarkably silly thing to do. After all, Coleman gets attention for this one column but won’t really gain much in the long term. Unlike an attack on a more established figure (i.e., Rush Limbaugh), few people have developed such a dislike for Power Line that it would cause them to view Coleman more favorably.

GS: This was also on Little Green Footballs yesterday. LGF got 83,000 unique hits yesterday.

Thanks for pointing that out. I updated the post to include those figures. Since I relied mostly on trackbacks to PL I probably undercounted the number of blogs (and hits) for this story.

17

Derek, Great points.

Art,

"as this is the mathematics of the argument that says; we are creating more terrorists by actively engaging terrorism, and should therefore be less active."

These are two completely different assertions for two completely different scenarios. A closer comparison might be to say that since we devote so much media attention to terrorism, we are creating more terrorists. This was the argument after Tim McVeigh and Columbine. Glorify it (as so many Arab television studios do) or provide infamy and you certainly do encourage the behavior for some (even though studies showing Columbine coverage etc. to increase such activity are dubious).

It is almost a truism in opinion journalism, cinema, etc. that infamy and fame are almost equally good. When we engage terrorism with the military, terrorists know that they have one shot--either we will kill them or they wiill die in the act: there is no ongoing personal glory. Additionally, when we jail and kill terrorists, you actually eliminate the base of people who are committing the acts. It is like fighting crime.

However, when we combat (rhetorically) Michael Moore and Ted Rall, we are only fueling them as entertainers. They do not die. Even in the case of factual error their careers rarely end (read: Michale Moore, Jayson Blair and his new book, Rick Bragg). Humans love to have people to yell at, and we would miss the presence of Moore, Coleman, and Co. almost more than VDH or William F. Buckley. Why? Opinion works thrive on disagreement, not consensus. Even when we are applauding Cal Thomas and Co. it is usually for facing down a mortal enemy like Moore.

For Coleman, what better group to combat than a several million person pool of dedicated readers who are just aching to write the next big refutation of your "drivel". His only challenge is to keep the rivalry compelling. The blogs have already fallen hook, line, and sinker.

18

"one fail swoop"

That's about the size of it.

19

I think this Nick Coleman comedy is an important, although late-breaking (for 2004), pivotal moment in the blogosphere. I'm asking for reader input on a post I'm working on with a "year of the blog" theme. I'd appreciate your assistance at La Shawn Barber's Corner.

20

John

Urgggg. I am just about done with you and your muddy thinking. For while you claim "two completely different scenarios".

You immediately follow with:

"A closer comparison might be to say that since we devote so much media attention to terrorism, we are creating more terrorists".

Closer, yet completely different? OK. At least I see where you're coming from now.

For what it's worth, I also agree with your re-write of the argument. You should be able to tell us all why, right? It must be that the mathematics of your refinement are so "Completely different", right?

In fact, it is the same as my original contention. So not only do we agree, but you've yet to explain how you've fallen hook, line and sinker to my desire to contest your argument by continuing to disagree with me. I'll wait for your proof of this but watching for you to not respond.

But you're so clever - you must have seen that coming?

21

Don't do it, John - don't fall for the taunt. Don't squander your credibility....

22

An additional advantage blogs have over traditional media: newspapers are thrown away. Yesterday's blog post may be commented on by another blog today, or the original blogger might post an update, all of which keeps the story alive. Thus, it's not only TODAY's hit counts that should be considered, but today's and tomorrow's and the day after that, etc. By contrast, Coleman's column was printed just once and Coleman won't have a chance to respond for days.

I think this ability to keep the story fresh by constantly adding new details greatly compounds the power of blogs to influence. It also prevents someone from using the "that's old news" defense. It wasn't just the initial wave of blog reports about the forged documents that did Rather in. It was the constant drip of new information, new "proofs" that the documents could not be real, new examples of CBS' double standards, etc., that prevented Rather from riding out the storm.

23

"It is almost a truism in opinion journalism, cinema, etc. that infamy and fame are almost equally good."

ALMOST .... but perhaps, not quite.

Consider Michael Moore for a moment. Famous or infamous?

I care little for him, and consider him to be a bafoon. But did his foolish rants help or hurt the DNC?

Before you answer, consider his most recent change in appearance. What does it tell you about his own feelings about his image, affact and effect?

In the Coleman affair consideration has to be given to Coleman, his editor, the newspaper and the general public.

I come down on the side of challenging the Old Media at every foul up. Before the internet and the BLOGs it was not possible to challenge the likes of Rather. Now it is possible and certainly seems to be working pretty well. I say continue a winning game.

24

Art,

Condescension suits you. Really.

Since your last paragraph is unreadable, I will clarify my own stance and hope that I answer your question.

In your initials comment you said, "Coleman's line of reasoning is wrong regardless of how many or few come across it, and we are right to actively oppose it."

I did not address this by quoting it and responding in italics (or something similarly obvious), so I will do so now. Sorry.

Here goes.

Terrorism is active or intrusive. If you ignore terrorism, it continues and people die. No matter how flawed the thinking of the terrorists--whether their arguments are worthy of addressing or not--you must address their actions because if you do not, they force their actions upon you. That is why it is called terrorism. You do not have to consent to be exposed to it, and it is violent and forceful.

Rhetoric is only as intrusive as its acceptance. You see, no one can force me to read words. I cannot force you to read words. It is only when we are genuinely concerned about the spread of harmful ideas that we must contest rhetoric--and then we must adress it for two reasons: it is wrong, and people are listening to it (and perhaps acting on it).

You see, when you address fallacious arguments from people without significant ethos on a subject, you confer on them a credibility that they might lack otherwise. If I write a column about President Bush he should not respond unless: a) I have ethos (I am Colin Powell, etc.) b) What I say is true or persuasive enough to garner attention on its own (i.e. Drudge's break of the Lewinsky affair which gained steam as additional facts were uncovered and people with ethos or significant persuasive ability picked up the story) and significantly harm him or his reputation, or c) the rhetoric is likely to persuade a large enough faction to physical or rhetorical action to eventually harm him (i.e. MLK or Malcom X speaking to crowds in the civil rights movement--this is closely related to the previous two) . You see, if I write something that has none of the above (like so many SF Chronicle op-eds every day) then the President only confers on me credibility if he responds. He is important. I am not. If he responds to me people will think something is fishy or some of my words have hit home, and more people will listen to me.

In addition, the very act of rhetorical battling is more exciting than a one sided argument. Michael Moore is worth responding to initially because his medium is such that his fallacious claims could do harm--i.e. affect voting, etc. However, his continued fame with most people is a result not of his credibility but of his ability to generate controversy. This is what keep professional wrestling alive. People love conflict and entertainment even if something is false.

Here is where Coleman comes in. He is an idiot. This is true. However, prior to the Powerline debacle, he was an idiot, like Rall, with a defined and limited audience. I doubt very much that he sees much action outside of his own city. By inciting anger in the blogosphere, however, he has increased the size of his audience. This is how most blogs survive: cause trouble, disagree with people, get them to respond, keep it interesting. There are tons of people writing the same fallacious crap as Kos, they just don't know how to incite a rhetorical riot like he does.

So, lets review. Terrorism: You must fight, because it is physical and intrusive. Success is in killing people. If you succeed without opposition, terrorism is encouraged. Additionally, if opposition is lacking and teroriss are not jailed or killed, they perpetuate themselves. They can do more bad stuff in the future, annd people must notice because they are killing people. I repeat, it is forceful and intrusive.

Rhetoric: Only as intrusive as acceptance. We don't have to listen. Sometimes it becomes intrusive enough, through the ethos of the speaker or through it affects on our well-being or reputation (or the propogation of bad ideas) that we arre compelled to respond; but if the initial rhetorician is limited in ethos and audience, then he will stay that way in the absence of a compelling argument or a response to that argument. Ah, there is the key. Powerline is granting him the expanded audience he wants. So is everyone else. If bloggers had just ignored this gadfly (and his poorly written factually inaccurate rant) it may have gone away.

Now, the flip side of this is that it also generates readership for Powerline. They (and maybe all blogs) benefit from the controversy as much as Coleman. So mayybe it is good for them to address him.

However, the idea that saying "ignore Ted Rall" and "ignore terrorism" is the same is rediculous. As my mother told me in elementary school when I would get made fun of, "ignore them, and they will go away." In so many cases, this is true. If Coleman's article had drawn yawns, he would have retreated back to his hole as a mediocre writer and dropped the Powerline thing. The propogation of his column and his name only grant him more readership and perpetuate the controversy.

25

Allan,

I agree that Moore may have hurt the DNC, but I don't think he or Coleman really care for a "cause". The real question is what did the controversy do for Moore's notoriety and bank account.

As far as challenging "old media"--Powerline is bigger than Coleman. They just made Time's year-end list. They got noticed by Dan Rather and the New York Times. Important officals read their blog. Do you think Coleman can say the same? We have to realize that some factions of "old media" are no longer as mainstream as some blogs. Coleman is, as Powerline said, nipping at their heels. When we all respond, we make him look like a bigger dog than he is. But it is good fun, and entertaining, if that is the purpose.

26

John,

I don't think you're tracking.

Isn't Art saying that if your argument is valid, that you could only really prove your assertion by not responding to Art. Don't you see the trap you've created?

27

John,

I don't think you're tracking.

Isn't Art saying that if your argument is valid, that you could only really prove your assertion by not responding to Art. Don't you see the trap you've created?

28

:)

True, but I am bored at work and this is fun even if he doesn't have anything to say. When I get busy I will stop responding.

However, you will notice that the logic I employing is used when people ignore "trolls" on weblogs every day.

As they say, don't feed the troll. Unless, of course, it is fun to do so and your moral outrage at him takes a backseat to the fun you derive from toying with him.

What do you say, Art?

29

The propogation of his column and his name only grant him more readership and perpetuate the controversy.

Controversy? Some guy doesn't like some blog. To turn psychoanalytic, the whole thing seems suspiciously overcathected. On a similar note, while most of Coleman's column was drivel, the part about the phallic implications of the bloggers' nicknames was pretty funny.

30

John above makes the point:

"You see, when you address fallacious arguments from people without significant ethos on a subject, you confer on them a credibility that they might lack otherwise."

By this, and correct me if I am wrong, he is assuming that Powerline (with the stature of a president) is bestowing credibility to Mr.Coleman by responding?

But I think the anaology is backwards. Mr.Coleman, in his position as a paid journalist, has the role of "The President" in this exchange, since the resources and employees devoted to the MSM enterprise that is the Star-Tribune far outweigh that of the three or so guys writing Powerline.

The power and readership of blogs aside, what we really have is a David and Goliath sitaution in terms of the influence and economic clout of the Star-Tribune, versus a few guys who manage to be rhetorically and factually brilliant on their own time and dime. And like David, they, Powerline, quite frankly knocked Coleman out cold.

Sure Coleman might see a temporary spike in readership, but we cannot assume he is brilliant enough to have baited Powerline into throwing the spotlight in his direction. Nor can we assume that Mr.Coleman, in this exchange, has played the role (as long as I am thinking Biblical here) of Essau, knowingly sacrificing his integrity in exchange for attention.

Whether Essau (knowingly making this exchange for some perceived benefit), or Goliath (confidently starting this exchange not realizing he was intellectually unarmed), in the long run, I tend to think this will result in him lying on the ground (in "woe is me, fetal position"), with career head cut off.

The Star-Tribune can go only so long giving him the platform to tarnish the paper; eventually they will assume that he can't help being ineffectual (aka. giant taunting ass) and will cut his head to make room for someone who is not a total lackwit.

31

"Anyone who doubts Hewitt’s claim should just ask Nick Coleman, columnist for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the latest media figure to be “humbled” by bloggers."

I'm not too sure about this. I don't believe that Nick Coleman has been humbled at all. Wouldn't he have to respect the opinion of anyone who is critical of him on this to be humbled? Wouldn't he have to have been capable of embarrassment over what he writes?

Neither of which is the case here.

Nick Coleman is critical of bloggers because, in his mind, they aren't "responsible" or "journalists". Of course, Nick would retort that critics of his column miss the fact that Nick's column is neither a example of journalism, nor is his column held to strict journalistic standards which he is insisting bloggers be held to.

Nick is the master of hair-splitting and semantics. He must be read in a this way.

32

This is my first post here but I compelled to bring a negative note to the proceedings: Jack Warner, he of Warner Bros., once noted that the only bad publicity is no publiclity. Coleman and his employer might publically loathe the attention his tantrum disguised as professional journalism has produced but privately they're no doubt loving it, because when the dust has settled they will have lost countless subscribers and gained advertisers, specifically Liberals.

In short, where the Mainstream News Media is concerned, all that matters is the bottom line.

33

I find this whole converstaion silly at best. Like Powerline hasn't taken fault with others just as Mr. Coleman has done to them.

It seems like we are witnessing a real transformation under foot, the bloggers are now becoming the main stream media. Then what?

34

April,

It seems like we are witnessing a real transformation under foot, the bloggers are now becoming the main stream media. Then what?

Then we will see a new group emerge to overthrow the media kingdom of blogdom. Who will that be? I predict the text-messagers who will wear their fingers to little numbs denouncing the MSB (mainstream bloggers). ; )

35

This type of attack on members of print as well as broadcast media (i.e. Dan Rather) will continue for the forseeable future. It seems that members of one particular political party (republicans) have the gall to squash the opinions, both good and bad, of another political party (democrats). Due to the simple fact that money talks and the major donors to political campaigns in large monetary amounts are affiliated with the republican party, the voices that get heard will be only attacking the voices of democrats and other liberal-minded individuals.

http://sorenson.blogspot.com

36

Due to the simple fact that money talks and the major donors to political campaigns in large monetary amounts are affiliated with the republican party, the voices that get heard will be only attacking the voices of democrats and other liberal-minded individuals.

Feh. The whole point about blogs is that they're voices of the money-less and traditional-influence-less (the latter being the reason I've always been a bit skeptical of HH as a bona fide blogger - although, as a good post-structuralist, I'm sure a case could be made for him as this genre's hymen; I'm sure HH has been called a lot of things, but that's gotta be a first).

At any rate, the corporatist critique is misplaced.

37

An Ode to Old Nick Colemen

Nick Coleman represents a dying breed - fringe liberal militants who actually hold a job. He despises the fact that the Star Tribune has become a dusty Cold War-era rag that borders on irrelevant, eclipsed by the marketplace of free ideas. As he looks out his window at 425 Portland, Coleman is preturbed by the happy faces of prosperous achievers. How dare they not revere him. Why he holds the exclusive key to the truth. By the way, that 425K circulation figure his highly suspect. It's under investigation.

38

The Coleman attack is, indeed, scabrous. But someone said: "All publicity is good publicity." How many people hit PowerLine for the first time after reading that attack? For how many was it their first of many contacts with a blog? Perhaps we should take up a collection and hire "Colemans" to viciously attack the blogosphere at every major daily in the country.

When counting circulation, keep in mind that half of the people who pick up a newspaper read only the comics and the sports page. I guarantee that advertisers know this and place ads accordingly. Political columists matter very little when it comes to ad-generating circulation.

39

I read Nick Coleman's column - and think he made some good points. Especially interesting was his point that the Powerline folks seem to blog while at work. I wonder what Twin Cities Federal's policy is about appropriate use of the internet.

40

Scott Johnson is a vice president at TCF. I think he earns his keep, whatever time he might spend blogging.

41

Tom Huyck wrote, "...He despises the fact that the Star Tribune has become... eclipsed by the marketplace of free ideas... How dare they not revere him. Why he holds the exclusive key to the truth..."

Yes, the Nick Colemans of the MSM might say that they are fighting for the 'little guy'. But, they sit behind their institutions' castle walls and pour invective upon anyone who dares to correct their sloppy work and defective ideas.

Oslo, I think the Goliath analogy is closer to the truth, as even knowing about the sling-shot, Goliath did not believe that it could harm him. It fits Dan Rather's Memo-gate even better.

John, in the long-run, the whole "famous/infamous 'no publicity is bad'" strategy would only accelerate the fall of the MSM. The MSM's biggest advantage is the trust that the public puts into their brand. If they do not produce a quality product, then their reputation and their brand (their greatest asset) loses value (or even more value).

The barrier to entry into the blog-o-sphere is so low ... the blog-splosion is just beginning. The real power will ultimately be in the hands of the one(s) who can harness and focus the power of all the little typing fingers across the globe -Microsoft? or Google? or ??? ... They will either buy and use the old brands of the MSM or religate them to obscurity (some of both probably).

42

Joe,

Interesting analysis. I think your point that the blogosphere can ruin a brand, though, is slightly over stated, at least for now. Even Rather could have easily saved himself with a little better PR program. No doubt, though, the blogosphere represents a formidable power, especially in the media biz.

I'm intrigued, too, by the blogosphere's potential to enhance brands. For example, I recently struggled to upgrade my son's aging Dell tower. I found the Dell tech help online to be not very helpful. However, Dell also has a very nicely organized chat room (I guess you could call it a community blog). I very quickly found highly specific and useful information directly from other Dell users. My problems disappeared. Dell and others should leverage this blog power.

43

Sounds like you bloggers are the pompous bastards, loving it when you can catch a dumb mistake(s). (disclosure: i do NOT work for any media). Of course you guys are too conveniently stupid to realize coleman's column is exactly that--a personal column where he gives his opinion on matters. But it seems to me some bloggers are narrow minded, narcissitic, nut cases that are eager to not only write off the star/trib, but every newspaper in america. it's hard for me not to stereotype you losers.

44

"Of course you guys are too conveniently stupid to realize coleman's column is exactly that--a personal column where he gives his opinion on matters"

Except that is exactly what I said above. Norm Coleman's column is an example of neither responsibility or journalism, despite criticizing bloggers for not being responsible or journalists. Or are you just "too conveniently stupid to realize" it, too?

Thanks for joining the stereotype, "jack". Its comfortable here, ain't it?

45

Here is a fact-check on Powerline. They said that Nick Coleman was a "guest host on the far-left Air America network" on December 13. Well, in fact he was substituting for Wendy Wilde's local Minneapolis-based radio show which happens to broadcast Air America shows at other hours.

Building him up to knock him down.

As a matter-of-fact, Coleman did appear on Al Franken's show as a phone-in guest during one segment. The topic of that discussion was his comparison between mangers and homeless shelters.

46

Powerline lacks credibility. It's true that Coleman didn't go into detail about that. I did, here.

47

jukeboxgrad,

Woodwork: where the swift boat vets went into after the election.

48

Webster,

That's sounds like a difference without a distinction. Or is a distinction without a difference?

Jukeboxgrad,

I was completely shocked, shocked by what you have dredged up about Powerline. When I read their website and they stated that they had never made an error or a mistake, I was absolutely convinced by the power of their writting. Now I am beside myself with rage that the fellows at Powerlineblog.com are not as perfect as they have claimed to be. Who would have thunk it?

49

Jukeboxgrad,

On another site you wrote:

"Hinderaker makes this complaint about Coleman: "he never cites a single instance in which we have misrepresented a source, tried to pass fake documents off as genuine, or, for that matter, even made a mistake."

Is this a selective quote? The full quote is

"As to "professional standards," he never cites a single instance in which we have misrepresented a source, tried to pass fake documents off as genuine, or, for that matter, even made a mistake. So, again, it's hard to make much of a substantive response."

Prior to writting this, at the top of this post, he writes:

" I'd like to respond to his charges, only I can't figure out what they are."

So as you can see, its not that he's claiming some kind of perfection. He's saying that he opinion article in question is so lacking in substance that there is no reason to make a defense.

Had you written the article, perhaps then they would have needed to bother.

50

"Woodwork: where the swift boat vets went into after the election."

Webster, you're right. But actually they'll be back in about 37 years. They'll be saying something like this: "Iraq didn't really need to turn into a dangerous Islamic theocracy 35 years ago, when our last helicopter left the roof of the embassy. That only happened on account of all the leftist girlie men who insisted that 30,000 American dead and wounded was enough. If only they had let us nuke the towelheads. And we'll never forgive those traitors who disgraced our soldiers by claiming atrocities were committed."

Eric said "Now I am beside myself with rage that the fellows at Powerlineblog.com are not as perfect as they have claimed to be."

Your sarcasm only shows that I didn't make things simple enough for you to grasp. My mistake.

It's not that they're not "perfect." All humans make mistakes, but responsible people make an effort to fix their mistakes.

Powerline points fingers at CBS for ostensibly not being careful with the truth, but they're quite willing to trample on it themselves. At least Rather finally admitted his mistake. Powerline apparently thinks that sort of accountability only applies to others. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Let me know if that's still over your head.

"So as you can see, it's not that he's claiming some kind of perfection."

Since you saw my posts elsewhere, you should know I already addressed this. So excuse my while I quote myself.

I think they are, indeed, "claiming some kind of perfection." Hinderaker's complaint to Coleman is, in my opinion, tantamount to claiming that Powerline has never "misrepresented a source," never "tried to pass fake [testimony] off as genuine," and never "even made a mistake." This is what ostensibly makes them morally superior to Dan Rather. Trouble is, it seems to me that they've indeed done all those bad things (and the fact that Coleman's article didn't cite specific proof of this is sort of beside the point). Trouble is, their own record of carelessness (or worse) makes them poor candidates for the role of pointing fingers at Rather.

I realize you'd like to make a federal case out of the fact that Coleman didn't cite specific evidence. But I did. Focusing lots of attention on Rather and Coleman is a handy smokescreen to hide the gaping holes in Powerline's own credibility.

"Had you written the article, perhaps then they would have needed to bother."

Powerline is well-aware of the facts I've cited, but still apparently feel no need to "bother" to correct their mistakes. When they caught Dan Rather behaving this way, they screamed bloody murder. The word for this is hypocrisy.

51

So, Joe, do you think you could get your stuff past a good copy editor on a daily basis?

One of the things the guys at the old gray ladies have that bloggers don't is dedication to the facts. Oh, yeah, errors sneak through from time to time.

But their batting average at getting it right is much higher than yours, whatever it is.

Coleman's point was that the bloggers getting attention are biased hacks. Your attack on Coleman only offers evidence to his point, not refutation. He accuses you of making such unwarranted attacks -- and you respond by making another unwarranted attack.

Amazing.

52

Joe,

Any man who makes fun, who tries to make humor out of the death of a homeless man is shameless.

Joe, why do you defend such a person?

Shame on you.

Have you read "Big Trunk's" post? Do you similarly have no care for the homeless? Do you poke fun at alcoholics for sport?

I find it difficult to believe you could be so uncharitable, and your defense of a man who is, baffles me.

53

Jukeboxgrad,

You need to re-read what I wrote and take a stab at understanding it. Its quite simple really. The Main Stream Media (Often times called the MSM)has little to no accountability (Until now!). Nick Coleman, being a part of the MSM writes a hit piece on the guys at Powerline. Nick Coleman is supposed to be a professional, as he is a part of the MSM. The guys at Powerline would like to respond to or refute the hit piece made by Nick Coleman. They are unable to because there are no substantive charges made by Mr. Coleman.

End of story.

You seem to think that your complaint is somehow relevant to this discussion. I'm trying to help you by showing you that it is not. Powerline does not have to respond to your charges because your charges were not made. Once again, had you written the column they would need to respond. Had any blogger made the charges or complaints, there could have been a conversation. Instead, the tirade was made by the dead tree association and powerline proves a point. Blogosphere > MSM.

If you would like to see Powerlineblog answer your charges you need to send them an Email. Or, if you would like to expose the nasty little quizlings over at Powerlineblog for who they really are, start your own blog and link to it in threads like these. That will get their attention and then maybe your accusations will be relevant to the discussion.

"I think they are, indeed, "claiming some kind of perfection." Hinderaker's complaint to Coleman is, in my opinion, tantamount to claiming that Powerline has never "misrepresented a source," never "tried to pass fake [testimony] off as genuine," and never "even made a mistake." "

You are asking for the impossible. Allow me to give you an example from this website.

Suppose someone from the MSM decided to attack this website and Mr. Carter. They said things like, "Joe Carter is a hypocrite!" and "Joe Carter tells lies!" but cites no examples and prove these assertions.

So Joe comes here and says, "I see no reason to refute what they have written about me because they used no examples of how ive ever made any mistakes."

This doesn't mean that Mr. Carter is claiming to never have made any mistakes, it means he's not going to do their work for them. We all make mistakes and anyone who has had a website for more than a year is going to have their share of them. But why do their work for them? They are the lousy journalists who failed to cite any examples. Should Joe then provide them with ammunition?

"Perhaps they are speaking of the time I made that spelling error on April 14th 2004? Or perhaps they are speaking of the time I wrote Ms. Watson instead of Mrs. Watson. Let me go ahead and research every single mistake I may or may not have ever made and post a refutation here, because someone wrote a lousy hitpiece on me."

Perhaps now you see how silly it is?

54

Ed said "but their [MSM] batting average at getting it right is much higher than yours [bloggers], whatever it is."

You're right but you're understating the problem. It's not just that bloggers make mistakes. What makes matters worse is the mythology that right-wing blogs are self-correcting, that they can't get away with blatant lies because their readers will check up on them, and this will lead to corrections being run. The episode I cite proves this is indeed a myth.

In other words, the mistakes aren't the worst part of the problem. The worse problem is the refusal to fix mistakes, even after they're pointed out. (I think it was JFK, the first one, who said something like "an error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to fix it.") This problem is further aggravated by denial, by the smug mythology which brags that blogs are self-correcting. Nonsense.

Ed said "you seem to think that your complaint is somehow relevant to this discussion."

It all depends how you define "this discussion." I realize certain people (including you) would like to focus attention on the quality of Coleman's work, while studiously avoiding any careful scrutiny of Powerline's work. Given the way Time (a liberal rag, obviously) and others are licking their boots, I think some careful examination of their work is long overdue.

"Powerline does not have to respond to your charges because your charges were not made."

How can you say that? The charges were indeed made, here and elsewhere, recently and not-so-recently. Nevertheless, the silence from Powerline is deafening. Or do you mean that "charges" don't count unless they're published in a major newspaper? An odd position for a pro-blog person to take.

Anyway, Powerline shouldn't need me or anyone else to point out this error. An iota of research makes the error obvious. In fact, an iota of research would have prevented the error in the first place. But they compound the error by failing to take responsibility for it, even though they're aware of it. They're doing exactly what they crucified Rather for, in other words.

"If you would like to see Powerlineblog answer your charges you need to send them an Email."

Gosh, now why didn't I think of that? Excuse my sarcasm. They were notified quite some time ago. Anyway, that notification should not have been necessary, and the error never should have happened. The original error itself revealed an egregious lack of fact-checking. And that fact-checking, ultimately done by someone else, is readily available at the same site where the original Regelin article appeared. So Powerline doesn't have to look very hard to see the work someone else did, that they should have done themselves.

"You are asking for the impossible ... We all make mistakes ... They are the lousy journalists who failed to cite any examples."

I'm not defending the fact that Coleman failed to be more specific. I'm pointing out that Coleman was right, even though he failed to be specific. You're explaining why you think Powerline might have an excuse to ignore Coleman (because he wasn't specific enough). You're not explaining why it's OK for them to fail to take responsibility for their poor work which I cited.

55

Oops, the second time I said "Ed" I meant "Eric & Lisa." Speaking of correcting mistakes...

56

Jukeboxgrad,

You can repeat the same thing as many times as you like, it won't change the fact that you are in error. You alone have come to a conclusion and are arguing with yourself. Do you think that there are no blogs out there who take offense at Powerlineblog? They would love to jump all over powerline IF they made any mistakes. But you see, no one is taking you seriously because you have not demonstrated that Powerline has made any mistakes. It might be proven in your mind, but really, what is that worth? Are you saying that any ole person in the comments section of any ole blog needs to be answered in order for Coleman to be wrong? Seriously now.

I'll make the same point again as you seem to have missed it again. Powerlineblog has not be accused of making any mistakes. That's what Powerlineblog said. Instead they were ad hominem attacks.

If the fellows at Powerlineblog have made a mistake, one so awful that it points out that you are correct and so is Mr. Coleman, you need to get a blog, or you need to find a blog sympathetic to your cause, or a MSM outlet to demonstrate, using quotes (I read through your thing at Captains Quarters and don't remember you linking to the original powerlineblog article, maybe you did) what powerlinblog claimed/said and how they were wrong.

Then and only then should the guys over at Powerlineblog bother to refute it. They certainly shouldn't waste their time everytime some guy in some comments section somewhere claims to have proven them wrong without even a debate, except for with himself.

But for you to be correct in this statement:

"How can you say that? The charges were indeed made, here and elsewhere, recently and not-so-recently. Nevertheless, the silence from Powerline is deafening. Or do you mean that "charges" don't count unless they're published in a major newspaper?"

No, I mean the charges don't count when made in a comments section of a blog. If they were made by Andrew Sullivan, or Talking Points Memo or at Matthew Yglesias website, etc, then we've got a conversation on our hands.

57

Jukeboxgrad,

As an aside, I went through all of the links you provided after making the statement, "I read through your thing at Captains Quarters and don't remember you linking to the original powerlineblog article, maybe you did" and found that you did indeed link to everything.

After reading through all of the links and all of the history of the point you are trying to make, here is my conclusion. The statements made by you, which are

[QUOTE]
Powerline points fingers at CBS for ostensibly not being careful with the truth, but they're quite willing to trample on it themselves.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
Powerline lacks credibility.[/QUOTE]

And finally,

[QUOTE]
If they had, they would have easily figured out that he's a liar. Within days, Regelin was exposed as such, at the same site that published his original article. It turns out that aside from exaggerating his duration of service, the geographic scope of his service, and his rank, Regelin also admitted privately that his central published assertion about Kerry and Cambodia ("it was not possible to navigate to Cambodia by water in a Swift Boat") was simply false.[/QUOTE]

Are all in error. Powerline was correct to tout Mr. Regelin and has no need to defend or retract or admit to any error.

Regelin was never exposed as being a liar, he was accused, which is different. I thought that Regelin did a pretty good job of arguing against someone who was purposefully trying to misunderstand him.

Regelin did not exaggerate anything either. He was accused and he did a good job of refuting that accusation. Why should Powerlineblog do what Mr. Regelin has already done well enough?

Finally, and you are really contorting the issue here, Regelin never admitted any such thing. He admitted that it was possible prior to the building of the bridge, which became impossible after the building of the bridge.

In conclusion, I hope you see how these things work. You've come to a conclusion that the guys are powerlineblog were wrong about something, which they weren't. And that they should spend some of their time defending what they have touted. They need not, Mr. Regelin has already done it to my satisfaction, and probably to theirs as well. Why should we continue to flog a dead horse?

58

"Powerline was correct to tout Mr. Regelin and has no need to defend or retract or admit to any error"

It's nice to see that at long last you're actually starting to pay attention to the facts of the situation, but you're still missing what's obvious.

The core of the problem with Regelin is this. His main charge against Kerry is the following statement, which he made publicly: "it was not possible to navigate to Cambodia by water in a Swift Boat." But he contradicted himself in the following private statement: "I'll admit openly to you that in early 1969 it was possible to get a Swift Boat into Cambodia … it's possible that John Kerry could have made the trip."

Bridge or no bridge, there is no way to reconcile those two statements. They're in direct contradiction.

If you read all Regelin's articles, you'll note that he never denies making the private statement. The best he can do is vaguely complain that he was somehow taken "out of context." Yeah, right.

By the way, note that in neither of these statements did he say anything about a supposed "bridge." The idea of the bridge only came up later, when he was trying to get himself out of trouble. If this bridge was anything more than a desperate afterthought, it's hard to imagine why he didn't mention it in his very first article.

By the way, there are many other problems with Regelin's imaginary bridge. There's ample reason to believe it never existed. These problems are documented here. (That's a very long thread mostly on a somewhat different subject. Search for "Regelin.")

It was also only later, when pressed, that Regelin acknowledged he knew the story of Bernique, who even Regelin admits had done exactly what Regelin had first claimed was impossible for anyone to do.

"Regelin did not exaggerate anything either"

Regelin first said "I drove a Swift boat for a year." He later admitted 4 months of this time was spent in port, resting and waiting for the boat to be repaired. He doesn't deny this. Please explain how this is not exaggerating.

Various commentators incorrectly assumed Regelin was the officer in charge of the boat, because he said "I drove," and didn't bother mentioning that his rank was Radarman. Please explain how this is not exaggerating. In his last article, he claims "everything I write always identifies me as an RD3 on the 82 boat in 1969." That's an outright and obvious lie. None of his prior articles mentioned his rank was RD3. Most importantly, he omitted that information from his first article.

Regelin said "I remember all the patrol areas." He later admitted he served only in one patrol area, and was expressly prohibited from entering even the adjoining patrol area, let alone a variety of other patrol areas. Please explain how this is not exaggerating.

In short, Regelin's "testimony" (the word Powerline used to describe his article) is no more credible than Rather's memos. If any of their typical media targets (e.g., the NY Times) ever tried to get away with what they themselves have done in this instance, they would be all over it.

By the way, you haven't bothered to explain how it is that Hinderaker supposedly used Regelin's article as a basis for a column Hinderaker wrote before Regelin's article was published. (The details on that, and the rest of the story, are here.)

59

jukeboxgrad,

Are you still flogging this dead horse? You might think that there is something there. But there is no there, there.

I'm completely satisfied with Mr. Regelin's answers to his critic. I suppose the Powerline guys are also. I do not agree with your conclusions. I suppose the Powerline guys don't either.

Oh, and as far as you final point is concerned. I had to work on New Years Eve this year (December 31st) and I was watching Fox News. They had a quote up from the Weekly Standard and below the quote was written the name of the author of the article and this date: January 03, 2005.

If you can figure out how that's possible, you will have the answer to your question.