I longer read Instapundit. The willful blindess to the situation in Iraq was one turn-off; the "hey have you seen my new $2,000 camera" posts were others.Indeed, though I don't feel bad for Putz.
But really, I just see the blog as a mass of wasted potential. When he was A.G. Android on Slate's The Fray, Instapundit was a genuinely interesting and provocative poster who followed his libertarianism wherever it went. The first month of Instapundit was a revelation, too: His posts on the stem-cell debate (he was for it) were honest-to-God good.
Then September 11. And Iraq. And suddenly he was calling the media and all dissenters traitors, refusing for one minute to seriously consider the possibilities of restraint. The first warning sign for me came in early 2002, when he accused a newspaper of calling for the assassination of George Bush after they ran an editorial praising the Army's victory in Afghanistan and noting that the Army did so despite Bush's claims in 2000 that Clinton had systematically gutted the armed forces. That seemed a bit much (even conservative Patrick Ruffini told him so).
And then Iraq, and so on, and suddenly he was a LINO. To justify his unblinking support of the war, he linked to increasingly extreme websites, which necessarily turned his readership rightward. The attitude changed, too: Early on in the blog, he met accusations of bias by claiming that it was just a hobby and that he would quit any time it stopped being fun. With the ads and the TechCentral and MSNBC deals, he no longer says that. I suspect (without proof) that it's become a money-making venture for him. He's created a generally right-wing audience that will not brook any dissent from the party line. They give him their support, and he gives them to advertisers -- but he must know that not feeding them red meat will lead to mass defections. Note the mass abandonment of Andrew Sullivan when he questioned the conduct of the war; note the "de-linking" campaign when Reynolds said he didn't think the ACLU was all bad. Whatever Reynolds' feeling are, my guess is that Instapundit will stop making money if/when he ever fully questions the conduct of the war.
So, he links to sites like that one [Confederate Yankee]. His audience demands it. In some ways, I feel bad for Reynolds: He's become a willing prisoner of his readers. And he's squandered a real chance to offer a new sort of dialogue in the country.
I would add to this excellent analysis only a couple of thoughts. One, he doesn't want a dialog, since he doesn't allow comments. And two, by transmitting the worst disinformation and the vilest partisan attacks, Putz is actually hurting the country.
A bully pulpit like his comes with responsibility and he abdicated it long ago.
7 comments:
That's a good analysis. Although I, too, feel no sympathy for the man. He's a tenured law professor, probably making low six figures. Anyone who would sell out their principles in such a calculated way deserves nothign but contempt. Also, he's always been a shitty writer and thinker, even if he happened to be right on stem cell research.
I don't know if money is a motivation in Glenn's blogging, that's in his head and I'm not a mind reader. So I don't know what to say about that.
I do really like the idea that he and his readers are a close-minded group. This is a problem the whole blogosphere is succeptible to -- people go to specific blogs to hear the same specific arguments and perspectives repeated over and over. Their opinions get strengthened when they find other people agreeing.
And a blogger's opinions might shift somewhat, toward the opinions that make him popular.
Dialog is important, and I don't think the blogosphere necessarily fosters constructive dialog between people with different ideas. That's why I haven't given up on the mainstream media yet -- they aim to such large audiences, they can't help but cast a wide net.
I'm convinced that the reason Putz doesn't allow comments -- and thus cultivate a dialog -- is because it would expose just how fringe and rabidly partisan his readers are, and his board would be flooded with posts of the "hang Janet Reno" variety (search this blog for that comment).
That would put an end to his phony "non-partisan, libertarian" veneer, once and for all.
It would also take away one of his favorite talking points, that the "lefty blogs" are so terribly rude and mean and uncivil.
Blue Texan, thanks for the kind words. Had I known you would put that post on the website, I would have spellchecked it. :)
Adam raises a good point on audiences. As I said, I don't read Reynolds, but in some ways, it's ironic that he repeatedly complains about the mainstream media while following traditional media practices, particularly when it comes to making money.
Briefly, the product that any media outlet creates -- whether Daily Kos, The National Review, The Wall Street Journal, or People -- is its audience. The outlet then markets that audience to advertisers. A big audience is good, but the ideal audience is wealthy and affluent, one that producers itch to get their products to and one they're willing to pay top dollar for. While objectivity is the goal of most reporters (and more power to them), keeping a neutral attitude in news reports is the best way to build an audience. The New York Times, for instance, rocketed to prominence in the early 20th century because it was scrupulously balanced in its reporting and could appeal to large numbers of readers, at a time when newspapers tended to be partisan outlets whose natures tended to alienate large segments of their potential audience.
So, how does this affect the blogosphere? In part, it's a throwback to the pre-objectivity media, with gangs staking out their territory and beating up anyone crossing into it. That model ended up failing in part because consumers turned away from it and toward papers like the Times. The die-hards who stayed on generally offered some other service. The original New York Sun, for instance, was a reactionary newspaper by the 1940s with the smallest circulation in the city, but was profitable because of its business reporting and the wealthy people who read it. However, the newspaper became exclusively dependent on that audience, and when ad revenue fell in 1949, the Sun couldn't survive: It died in 1950.
I haven't seen any comprehensive surveys of blog readers, but some bloggers (like Andrew Sullivan) say they can sustain a living from their websites, and I suppose other prominent bloggers can, too. Sullivan is interesting because he's tracked to the center, but most political blogs tend to stake out hard-core positions and sell a barracks mentality to their readers ("The MSM is hiding this news from you -- read us and find out what's going on").
When they're personal sites, they're personal sites. But when blogs become business propositions -- as many are becoming -- it makes me wonder about these audience dynamics. If they narrow their audience like Instapundit, they can be profitable by commanding loyalty -- but what happens when the economy goes into a downturn? Or if the country experiences a major political shift? They may end up like the Sun.
I felt sort of sorry for Reynolds until I saw his smug, defiant "phone conference" on Amanda Across America. He trotted out the "Well, you may think I'm an evil right winger, but look at the other stuff I support that they don't!" canard rabid partisans like to play. Like that republican I know likes to rub in our faces that he's pro-choice yet supports pharmacies not prescribing birth control.
The thing is, 9/11 scared the hell out of him. And he believes the only way to survive is for the US to kill as many Arabs as possible. Doesn't matter how. And for all the "not a dime's worth of difference" rhetoric from the left, the Republicans are far more likely to smash the middle east than the Democrats. So there he is.
I'll post the "Amanda" interview on the main page.
Oy.
Post a Comment