Beating my head against the wall

Yeah, we have to explain this again.

Atrios posted this up and I wanted to comment.

Journamalism

Murdoch's rag in London:

“Any payola allegations or some quid pro quo deal involving Markos and myself are complete fabrications,” Armstrong responded on the web last week. The two bloggers believe it is revenge for their success as opinion-formers, which in the words of a friend “has freaked out a lot of people”.

Moulitsas himself has said little about the controversy, short of rubbishing The New Republic and other critics. In an e-mail to supporters, he suggested: “It would make my life easier if we confine the story . . . let’s starve it of oxygen.”

The email in question had absolutely nothing about any "controversy" regarding "payola allegations" or "quid pro quo" deals, and was only about Jerome Armstrong's SEC issues.

My favorite bit was this actually:

“It’s the French revolution on the internet,” remarked Walter Shapiro, Washington bureau chief of the online magazine Salon, who believes Moulitsas has a poor record of picking winners. “These people were nothing a few years ago and now they’re being courted. Of course they’re supporting those who suck up to them the most.

”
"Of course" says Walter Shapiro, because in his world people "of course" end up "supporting those who suck up to them the most." Washington types continue to imagine a hierarchical top-down world where it's all about the money, access, and political star fucking because that's their world. If that's the world Markos wanted to live in he'd sell his new Berkeley home for a nice Washington condo so he could have his ass kissed 24 hours per day.

One doesn't even know how to begin to really defend against this kind of crap. Markos's never tried to be the best at "picking winners." If that's what he tried to do he'd head down to Vegas and make some bets. If the goal was to pick winners I'd ask you all to contribute to the re-election camapigns of Senators Kennedy and Clinton. Those who keep imagining "Kosola" should take a gander at Kos's ad rates and notice that he's imagined to set up an incredibly lucrative business which doesn't really require skimming a few grand from politicians.

Well, let's try.

First, Shapiro works for Salon, who once hired whiny ass titty baby Jake Tapper. Second, that's not how it works. You could kiss Kos's ass all day long and that doesn't mean the community will rally behind you. Kos is not some kind of kingmaker, he basically serves as a community center for a lot of other people's ideas. His power is more like Steve Rubell's at the height of Studio 54 than some kind of powerbroker.

You go to Kos because that is the happening place to be seen, that's it. It's not because we are barons and he is our feudal lord.

When someone makes a better site, that's where people will go.

I have friends who dislike Kos and his site, but like me and mine. So, does that mean I am insufficiently loyal to him and his "cause".

Why do reporters persist in being lazy? Why?

Atrios, the other wildly successful blogger, runs a very different site. No presidential candidate kisses his ass. Nor Josh Marshall.

Every blog is as different as every magazine.

I'm going to reveal a confidence. Jen and I are friends with Lindsay Beyerstein. She is an excellent cook. But does she discuss this on her blog? No. Never comes up as far as I know.

Why?

Because she doesn't raise it on her blog because she chooses not to.

So why in God's name do people like Shapiro think we're not individuals. How does Mark Warner throwing a party in Vegas, when I spent that weekend watching the World Cup in New York, affect me? What influence does it have in my life or on my blog?

Try none.

I've been to plenty of fancy parties at expensive places. So has Shapiro. Only he's stupid enough to think it makes a difference.

I'm more likely to work with a union or a think tank than a pol for information on an issue. I'm not looking to have my ass kissed by anyone. I certainly am not interested in pushing people for office. Yet, Shapiro thinks we all follow orders like idiots.

And, he means the French Revolution as a slam, if he knows his history, which is always a question with some people. What he means that we're all a bunch of crazies who will eventually choose a dictator to wage our wars and ultimately fail.

Which means he needs to read more history.

If this is anything, it is the American Revolution online, from which there is no going back. The Internet has increased the interaction between reader and writer to the point that a retreat is unimaginable, no matter how much he wishes it so.

Remember, the excesses of Napoleon led for much of the French Revolution to be undone.