[Ezra] Klein wants to turn the whole discussion into an argument about which side was "right." Of course, there's no such thing. I am not arguing that there is some single Truth and that honest journalists convey it while netroots activists and their allies do not. Being "right" about Social Security privatization or the Iraq war is a matter of opinion. [emphasis added - GKS] What I'm arguing is that there's such a thing as the truth as an individual sees it. [emphasis in original - GKS] The netroots method is to severely discourage any truths that undercut the liberal message. [emphasis added - GKS] I concede that this is politically effective, even necessary in the face of a right-wing message machine. What I continue to dispute is that this is the only appropriate ethos for conducting political discourse.
The Internet has become a place where true believers go for affirmation of their beliefs. Conservatives and liberals may debate philosophy or tactics, or excoriate politicians for compromising, but when it comes to disputes between Republicans and Democrats they brook no dissent and refuse to acknowledge inconvenient truths. Conservatives won't talk about Paul Wolfowitz because it will help the liberal agenda, while liberals won't talk about Sandy Berger because it will help the conservative agenda.
This may be better than the old world, where conservatives all toed the line while liberals demonstrated independence, but it isn't good. Liberal discourse is increasingly becoming a mirror image of conservative discourse--a Petri dish where the outrages of the other side are endlessly recycled and malfeasance by your own side ignored. Those who "repeat conservative frames" are either dismissed because they're conservatives ("wingnuts") or, if they're not, they're dismissed as "concern trolls" or "wankers."
The netroots consider this state of affairs not just a necessary evil but something to be celebrated. As Atrios wrote earlier this year, "the wingnutosphere [i.e., conservative blogosphere] was always populated by lunatic morons, but back in the old days we actually felt obliged to engage them. Now we just mock them. Much better."
I'm not saying the traditional media ethos is perfect. In fact, I've spent years criticizing fake even-handedness. When you're a priori committed to locating the blame for any problem halfway between the two parties, you've corrupted your ability to describe the world fairly. But when you're a priori committed to always advancing the interests of one side, you're doing the same. The difference is that the problems with the mainstream media are correctable--indeed, they are being corrected, as I'd say coverage has dramatically improved in recent years--because mainstream journalists believe in the goal of objectivity or intellectual fair play.[emphasis added]
In the first highlighted section, I think it is important to note that Chait repeatedly uses the word "truth". My problem with this is that the frustration liberals and left-wing bloggers have with the right is not some philosophical disagreement over "truth". It is a much simpler frustration with a lack of adherence to facts. There is a difference. We can argue back and forth over the whole question of "truth" and not get anywhere, and that is hardly a substantive concern of most of those on the left (in that way, Chait is constructing a straw argument here, claiming that lefty bloggers are upset over something that does not bother them in the least). Our concern, and here is where we must focus ourselves, is factual. To claim, as Chait does, that disagreements over policy matters are matters of opinion, not truth is wrong because that has never been the left-blogistan position. For most of those on the left side of the internet, the arguments, for example, advanced by those who were pushing Pres. Bush's plan for the partial privatization of Social Security were factually inaccurate through and through. That they were easily disproved was ignored, not just by supporters of the President's plan but by the media that covered the issue. The entires structure of argumentation upon which the right relies is soaked in easily disproved falsehoods. Not errors of "truth", but simple matters of fact. Whether it's aluminum tubes or uranium yellow cake bound for Iraq, a Social Security crisis, or whatever the excuse de jour for firing eight (or perhaps nine) sitting US Attorneys, the right is wrong on simple matters of fact. Their arguments are fallacious because they do not have the facts that support it. Thus, when atrios says it is easier to mock the right than to engage them, he is taking the position that is intellectually sincere; how in the world do we engage those whose entire world-view relies upon a series of factually inaccurate premises?
As to his second claim, concerning the left-wing political internet and the press, we are presented with a false choice (the liberal bloggers should be journalists, not bloggers) and a grossly overstated, and unsubstantiated by evidence, claim (the press is getting better and better). As to the first, I for one have no interest in being a journalist. That may not be true for all, or most, or even some liberal bloggers, but I do see the difference, understand and accept it, and would much prefer to be a blogger. Chait's problem with liberal bloggers, apparently, is that we aren't journalists. He wants us to like him and other mildly non-right-wing journalists, and argues that if we just held to journalists' high standards, we would appreciate what he and others do. He also claims that our complaints about the press discount the fact that journalists as a whole have improved markedly "in recent years". How, exactly? By reporting on John Edwards haircut, incessantly? By featuring a racist, hate-filled hack on a formerly respectable news channel? By featuring another Hillary-obsessed non-journalist on another program, a man who just oozes man-love on Republicans time and time again? This is not to say that some, or even a majority of journalists are not hard-working, tough-and-fair minded individuals whose goal is to get the story, and get it right. The problem with noting this is that the most visible, the most highly paid, and the most celebrated journalists today are mindless hacks, or in the case of FOXNews, partisan hacks with no integrity whatsoever. This is on display day after day after day. Chait's blindness to it, and his claim of "improvement" only shows that he doesn't understand the basic difference between what journalists do and what bloggers do.
Chait's reply to his critics is instructive, because at heart, I believe he wants to be liked by liberal bloggers. I honestly feel his feelings are hurt because he is often chastised by some whom he might actually esteem. Chait's problem, however, as exposed by his reply, is similar to Joe Klein's - he is an elitist who insist that the polloi follow rather than lead, listen rather than speak, and conduct political debate in a civil and constructive manner, rather than get all down and dirty. We should advocate, but never yell. We should concede our own limitations, while always acknowledging that our opponents are persons of good faith, too. In short, we should wimp out rather than fight. We should temper our anger out of a sense of propriety that has no place in a struggle for the direction of our country, a struggle that includes ending a war that continues to kill our young men and women. As Ezra Klein notes in his "last word" (as it were), Chait's reply is off the mark and weak because, in the end, he knows his position is insupportable.
UPDATE: Over here Glenn Greenwald responds to a criticism Joe Klein has made. It is a lengthy riposte, and deserves ones full attention, but I would like to pull out one part in particular that says better what I tried to say here:
The blog-media dividing line is not about ideology or temperament, at least not principally. The dividing line, more than anything else, is one's view of the Beltway political and media culture -- is it (a) basically a healthy and constructive system filled with good, capable and decent people which just needs some reform here and there, or is it (b) fundamentally broken, corrupt, barren, devoid of any vibrancy and integrity and real purpose?
National journalists, because they and their lives and careers are so integrally woven into that system, instinctively believe the former. And that, more than anything else, renders them incapable of fulfilling the core journalistic function, which is to report on our government adversarially and to view it as a target of scepticism. They are far too integrated into it and dependent upon it to do anything other than view it as intrinsically good and therefore reflexively defend it. And that is true no matter how many foreign outside-of-the-Beltway excursions David Broder courageously undertakes. They are spokespeople for the royal court of which they (and typically their spouses and friends and close associates) are such a critical part.
Bloggers, by stark and vital contrast, are (along with blog readers) almost uniformly people who function outside the Beltway system, i.e. they are the "ordinary Americans" whom people like Broder and Klein claim to represent. And they are largely motivated by animosity towards that system, by a belief that it has become broken and corrupt. For that reason, they are uniquely positioned to perform the adversarial and watchdog functions which our political press is intended to perform but which -- due to its becoming far too integral a component of the Betlway system -- it has now almost completely abdicated.
There is nothing wrong with Klein coming to the defense of his profession and its practitioners. The problem, alas, is that his defense is so moribund, distorting Greenwald's criticism (trying to make Glenn Greenwald look inconsistent and stupid is like trying to make George Bush look informed and congenial) to the point of caricature (truly, Klein cannot believe that Greenwald would make the argument Klein claims he makes; thus, he is dishonest as well as having all his other faults). Greenwald used Broder's forays to the polloi as an example of sneering Beltway elitism, not a topic for discussion. The central point was the brokenness of the entire Beltway pundit class. Klein never addresses that point because, like Chait in a different context, he cannot. Neither one addresses the central issue - bloggers succeed because they aren't Beltway pundits. Apparently, Klein and others feel we are all wannabe pundits who need coaching. Alas and alack, it isn't true. I for one would prefer to remain where and what I am (although getting a paycheck for all the time away from my family would be nice, George Soros if you're listening . . .)
