I believe both parties have, for the most part, always seen the media as a neccesary evil, and that they somewhat cynically view the blogs as an easier to manipulate version of the same. Bartlett is probably just being honest there. One great example is found with both Hillary and Obama. If you hear their speeches made out on the campaign trail and in debates, they are very careful to try to swing more moderate, hoping to capture a share of the center and keep them viable for the general election. But items they both post or indirectly feed to KOS tell a story with a far more left wing slant, seeking to toss more red meat to the base.
I have observed similar parallels right here and on your radio show. McCain comes off a lot more moderate during interviews on CNN, but on Heading Right Radio he's tossed the odd bit of ear candy to the base as well.
The more partisan bloggers also may be viewed (whether correctly or incorrectly) by the candidates has having less of an interest in fact checking material they put out which supports their party and/or candidate. So in that sense, bloggers may be viewed as a less filtered or unfiltered in terms of getting the message out and keeping it pure.
I don't care for Bartlett's comments and I imagine many of us might find them offensive, but I also get a sense that he was being candid. Rather than intentionally trying to offend anyone, you may just be getting a peek into how political movers and shakers honestly view the blogosphere.
captained
· 2 years ago
If he wasn't intentionally trying to offend anyone, then that explains a lot about why communications from this administration has been so piss-poor. ;-)
Tom_Shipley
· 2 years ago
I don't know, when someone regurgitates something, they take it in they return it back out. This guy's comment seems to imply if the white house tells hewitt (or other bloggers) something, he takes it in then makes a case for it himself, making almost the exact case the white house made.
They had to pay that williams guy to do that. Guess with certain bloggers they found willing promoters of their agenda.
Jazz
· 2 years ago
If a blogger is a "willing promoter" of an agenda, then they are still expressing their own opinion and belief which happens to coincide with the administration's stand. And that's fine. When you start accepting money to put out a positive opinion, you're now opening the door to speculation that you're publishing things you don't believe in exchange for compensation. Very different.
Tom_Shipley
· 2 years ago
The point is, many bloggers posit themselves as "citizen journalists." Or just flat out journalists. And what Bartlett is describing is a cardinal sin of journalism. Journalists are supposed to act as a check on government, not promote their agendas for them.
biwah
· 2 years ago
Most bloggers have no pretense of neutrality, nor do they have any professional obligations in that regard. Jazz is right - that's what makes them an easier mouthpiece for the admin, or whatever institution has a friendly message to disseminate.
Capt. Ed and other bloggers may take umbrage at the word choice, i.e. "regurgitate", but other than that there's nothing surprising here. Readers of Ed know that he's no doormat for the admin, whether or not one agrees with all his views. He should be secure in that knowledge - the blogosphere is a hazardous place for the thin-skinned. And we all are thin-skinned on one issue or another.
NahnCee
· 2 years ago
I thought most bloggers posit themselves as flatout citizens, since the word and the profession of "journalist" has become such an obscene word.
Tom_Shipley
· 2 years ago
Well, you can call "journalism" an obscene word, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an integral part of any democracy.
flenser
· 2 years ago
"Journalists are supposed to act as a check on government"</KI>
No. I guess some of them do have this delusion of grandeur, but all we need them to do is report the news. Its not their role to be a check on government.
HNAV
· 2 years ago
Captain, I am really surprised at your own sensitivity.
How many bloggers exist today?
Not everything is about you, and other reasoned, excellent bloggers.
"If Bartlett doesn't know that much (he doesn't correct TM), then it begins to explain why the Bush administration has failed so miserably at getting their message out to anyone, let alone the blogosphere."
You still seem to present an awful lot of angst for the Bush Administration it seems.
Hell, these are the only folks who were brave and wise enough to continue the fight in the GWOT.
Let's be more fair, the Bush Administration got it's message out, but the MSM has slanted everything, and Conservatives, empowered by cynical angst stopped listening.
When GW said we need a serious Guest Worker program, some fools screamed "He's a traitor, impeach him".
Seriously, after Ms. Malkin called Ms. Meirs a "BELLHOP", why would the Bush Administration care about the blogger ego?
Right after the President recently rebutted the MSM - Democrat hyperbolic claims about Iran regarding the NIE at a Press Conference, some Conservative called in to the to say, 'why doesn't the President rebut these partisans?'
It was as if the Conservative was living in the dark, without any sound...
In fact, when the President was getting his message out about reforming Social Security, some Conservative bloggers were screaming about Dubai, pork spending, etc., in the most juvenile manner, which eventually undermined the Conservative Interest.
The reality is, if Conservatives had maintained this President's level of professionalism, we may still hold the Majorities in the House and Senate.
And right now, we could be making the tax cuts permanent, passing strong anti-illegal immigrant laws, etc...
But instead, Conservatives, led by bloggers, acted like little children having a temper tantrum.
Sorry Captain, but maybe if this article reveals Mr. Bartlett isn't as in touch with the WWW, maybe he has been a little too busy to sit in front of a computer, or maybe Conservative Bloggers haven't done a very good job getting their message out.
Let's look at the score card, Democrats look to increase their hold on the US Government in 2008.
Does this mean Conservative bloggers are actually driving voters away, encouraging the Liberal Agenda?
bio mom
· 2 years ago
HNAV, I agree with you 100%. Well said!! And it is not just bloggers. The entire crew at National Review fits your description as well.
Walker
· 2 years ago
Well said. I often liken some conservative bloggers to the spoiled kids who never played team sports--when they did't get their way or get to play the positions they wanted they quit & went home. I do think their incessant whining & criticism prior to last presidiential election helped lose at least one branch of the congress. They won the battle but lost the war. But perhaps there is a silver lining in that what you get with democrats in charge is revealed.
as to the current issue in question, I think the word selection was poor, but I took it to mean they quote back verbatim without cutting out context and using elipsis to alter the meaning.
chaking
· 2 years ago
Ed - the "stephen bainbridge" link at the bottom of the post isn't working...
perhaps taking off "{blog link}" from the end of it will fix it....
Bithead
· 2 years ago
First off, Texas Monthly doesn't know much if they think Hugh Hewitt is just a conservative blogger. He's a syndicated talk show host on Salem Radio with an audience of millions -- which is why the White House engages Hugh, not because of his blog. If Bartlett doesn't know that much (he doesn't correct TM), then it begins to explain why the Bush administration has failed so miserably at getting their message out to anyone, let alone the blogosphere.
Well, exactly. But you know what? A while ago, I attributed to Bill Clinton, the ability to jump in front of a lynch mob... one that was after him, and convince them it was a parade.... one he was leading. Well, that's what Bartlett's trying to do here. Of that point, I take this as confirmation, that Ed's seeing this, too;
As far as regurgitation and efficiencies of communication, we all wish Bartlett would have succeeded as well as he apparently thinks he did. Most of us have begged for more interaction at the White House, and have received little more than e-mails with speech transcripts.
Well, most of us didn't even get that. Certainly not the second and third line blogs,. such as BitsBlog through those years. So, that being the level of communications, how does Bartlett justify his claim that, essentially, the white house was leading the right side of the sphere around by the snout? All of the first circle I've spoken with on the subject tell me their access to the WH has been limited at best... and Ed confirms it in his piece, here.
The only logical conclusion as to the conformity of the right side of the web to what the WH was selling was that what the WH was doing was the right thing, and the right side identified their actions as such... and simply spoke their mind... not because the WH was selling them anything and certainly not because the WH told the right side to sell a given point to their readership. Sorry, that story simply doesn't wash with the facts, nor doesit mesh with any empirical evidence that I've seen or heard of.
Bartlett in recent days strikes me as someone in self-justification mode... and certainly one who wants to sell books. I suppose he'll be selling a chunk of them to the left.... Who, it should be noted, have been making a lot of noise about how the right siders were in Bush's vest pocket... all based on Bartlett's comments.
He may have had a couple such bloggers, but I should think I'd have heard about such increased access he speaks of, years ago, and from the bloggers themselves. But, no. Nary a peep.
I'm forced by that to consider Bartlett's position suspect.
Peejz
· 2 years ago
Some observations of my own from all of this:
1. Until I blogged(2001), I had never heard of Chris Cillizza, but now I do know of him. I had never heard of Dan Balz until I read your post...I'm just saying.
2. Again, until I blogged, I hadn't heard of Hugh, but once I became familiar with his work, I looked for him in other areas of the media. He is a very talented intellectual.
The fact is that the media turned it's nose up at blogging, only to realize that they were wrong, and the WH realized that it needed the bloggers more than the bloggers needed them. I do believe in reading Bartletts response, that he in fact has never ventured into the blogosphere. Who is walking lockstep with the message that the WH is sending out?
reliapunditr
· 2 years ago
this ranks right up there with apologizing for those 16 words in the sotu - which are still true, (and not one of which was "niger" or "yellowcake" or "bought" and which was based on British intle, not Wilson's or the CIA's) - and which came months after the Congress gave GWB war powers.
IDIOTS.
daveinboca
· 2 years ago
Sadly, the entire Bush operation's outreach to its own base mirrors its inability to explain itself in Reaganesque or even Clintonesque clarity & concision.
GWB operates as though he has a base vocabulary of about 5000 words, and his limited range of communication skills really sets the tone for an administration which often acts as though they are a deer in the headlights.
The press conference on Iran & the NIE shows he cannot in clear and simple terms communicate with the American people, preferring to try to woo the hostile press or to state principles. Give the people red meat to either chew on or reject. But the mealy-mouthed shrugs and smirks just don't convey much besides frustration. And if George could just rouse up the conservative troops like an articulate cheerleader, rather than claiming to be a quarterback [I'm the decider..."]
GWB is no Tom Brady, and he certainly isn't a two-fer like Reagan.
rw
· 2 years ago
I took it to mean that they reported exactly what was said, instead of a "summary" full of MoDowded quotes bent upon the purpose of putting forth what the author - not the speaker - wanted (see: NYT, Rather, Dowd, lefty blogosphere). Then again, Bartlett left my realm when he was patently dishonest about the fairtax.
hunter_123
· 2 years ago
For those many of us who are dismayed at Hugh's behavior regarding Romney, this is an important insight. For me, it changes the way I think of his show.
Scrivener
· 2 years ago
Excuse me. Was I dreaming, or did someone say the Bush White House had a communications shop? I'm not easily flustered, but from what I've seen since 2001, if they have one it's been in the witness protection program. [sarcasm macro to off]
NahnCee
· 2 years ago
You don't suppose by "regurgitate" he merely meant that bloggers will post accurately what you say, as opposed to MSM which not only posts inaccuracies but makes up out-and-out lies. I would tend to see that as a Good Thing if he would confirm he meant bloggers are more accurate.
chaking
· 2 years ago
no - he would have said he appreciated bloggers accuracy if he meant that. He said they just regurgitate, which is not flattery.
Peejz
· 2 years ago
chalking, I agree that the regurgitate is not a compliment, and hence Ed's displeasure. EEd is correct to be angry or disappointed. Obviously, Bartlett doesn't read blogs.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Actually, NahnCee appears to be right. The operative sentence is
They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them
Since blogs offer opinion on facts or factoids provided by others, Bartlett is indeed saying that what he offered was put up without error.
This can be verified directly on Hugh Hewitt's blog -- all provided material are blockquoted with a nonwhite background, and his own commentary surrounds it in white.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
This comment reminds me of Michael Scanlon who said "The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," in a memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee
chaking
· 2 years ago
Very true... Scanlon, the former communications director for Delay continues the above quote with: "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.""
So the communications director for Delay thought the right wing base was simply there to get manipulated and vote for whatever they told them to. I have to admit, you guys do a stand up job...
So many stories and leaks about how your conservative leadership really feels about their base that I can't believe you guys still back them... But I guess when you can blame everything on the liberal media, nothing you don't want to believe really sticks... does it?
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
I'm sort of at a loss as to what you are finding fault with in my comment.. Normally here, we don't hold a conversation riddled with nonsequiturs.
I don't read Hewitt, but a quick visit to his blog verified what I suspected would be the case -- it's common for bloggers to blockquote verbatim, and then to analyze what they just quoted, and Hewitt does not deviate from this behavior.
The main violator I've found to this standard is Wonkette, where the quoted stuff and the analysis are seamlessly intertwined.
chaking
· 2 years ago
I wasn't finding fault with your comment, though I do think it's a bit naive. Bartlett probably wasn't being literal, rather he was probably referring to how the WH can put some info out and most right wing blogs will treat it as the absolute truth and base everything else off of the info (even if it's just white house spin)...
Sure you can blockquote text and then talk about it, but do they actually challenge the talking points the white house puts out; or do they just look for ways to make the point even stronger?
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Depends on the blog, of course. I'm not naive. Proof: You are here at the Captains Quarters -- and I'm sure it's not just to beard the lion in his den.
chaking
· 2 years ago
=)
crossdotcurve
· 2 years ago
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
Proof positive that Hugh "The Platonic Shill" Hewitt is nothing but a trained parrot. Straight from the White House's mouth!
Perrrrrrr-fect!
Re-guuuuuuuur-gitate! I love it...
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
Of course, Hugh is too busy frantically trying to derail the Huckabee boom to even notice. Must...help...get...Mitt...nominated...
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
I've only heard Hugh called "The Cowardly Lion." Others that come to mind: Tim Russert - "Pumpkinhead" Chris Matthews - "Tweety" Bill Kristol - "WIlliam The Bloody" Jeff Goldstein -"Paste Eater" Ben Domenech -"Box Turtle"
All Comments
I have observed similar parallels right here and on your radio show. McCain comes off a lot more moderate during interviews on CNN, but on Heading Right Radio he's tossed the odd bit of ear candy to the base as well.
The more partisan bloggers also may be viewed (whether correctly or incorrectly) by the candidates has having less of an interest in fact checking material they put out which supports their party and/or candidate. So in that sense, bloggers may be viewed as a less filtered or unfiltered in terms of getting the message out and keeping it pure.
I don't care for Bartlett's comments and I imagine many of us might find them offensive, but I also get a sense that he was being candid. Rather than intentionally trying to offend anyone, you may just be getting a peek into how political movers and shakers honestly view the blogosphere.
They had to pay that williams guy to do that. Guess with certain bloggers they found willing promoters of their agenda.
Capt. Ed and other bloggers may take umbrage at the word choice, i.e. "regurgitate", but other than that there's nothing surprising here. Readers of Ed know that he's no doormat for the admin, whether or not one agrees with all his views. He should be secure in that knowledge - the blogosphere is a hazardous place for the thin-skinned. And we all are thin-skinned on one issue or another.
No. I guess some of them do have this delusion of grandeur, but all we need them to do is report the news. Its not their role to be a check on government.
How many bloggers exist today?
Not everything is about you, and other reasoned, excellent bloggers.
"If Bartlett doesn't know that much (he doesn't correct TM), then it begins to explain why the Bush administration has failed so miserably at getting their message out to anyone, let alone the blogosphere."
You still seem to present an awful lot of angst for the Bush Administration it seems.
Hell, these are the only folks who were brave and wise enough to continue the fight in the GWOT.
Let's be more fair, the Bush Administration got it's message out, but the MSM has slanted everything, and Conservatives, empowered by cynical angst stopped listening.
When GW said we need a serious Guest Worker program, some fools screamed "He's a traitor, impeach him".
Seriously, after Ms. Malkin called Ms. Meirs a "BELLHOP", why would the Bush Administration care about the blogger ego?
Right after the President recently rebutted the MSM - Democrat hyperbolic claims about Iran regarding the NIE at a Press Conference, some Conservative called in to the to say, 'why doesn't the President rebut these partisans?'
It was as if the Conservative was living in the dark, without any sound...
In fact, when the President was getting his message out about reforming Social Security, some Conservative bloggers were screaming about Dubai, pork spending, etc., in the most juvenile manner, which eventually undermined the Conservative Interest.
The reality is, if Conservatives had maintained this President's level of professionalism, we may still hold the Majorities in the House and Senate.
And right now, we could be making the tax cuts permanent, passing strong anti-illegal immigrant laws, etc...
But instead, Conservatives, led by bloggers, acted like little children having a temper tantrum.
Sorry Captain, but maybe if this article reveals Mr. Bartlett isn't as in touch with the WWW, maybe he has been a little too busy to sit in front of a computer, or maybe Conservative Bloggers haven't done a very good job getting their message out.
Let's look at the score card, Democrats look to increase their hold on the US Government in 2008.
Does this mean Conservative bloggers are actually driving voters away, encouraging the Liberal Agenda?
as to the current issue in question, I think the word selection was poor, but I took it to mean they quote back verbatim without cutting out context and using elipsis to alter the meaning.
perhaps taking off "{blog link}" from the end of it will fix it....
Well, exactly. But you know what? A while ago, I attributed to Bill Clinton, the ability to jump in front of a lynch mob... one that was after him, and convince them it was a parade.... one he was leading. Well, that's what Bartlett's trying to do here. Of that point, I take this as confirmation, that Ed's seeing this, too;
Well, most of us didn't even get that. Certainly not the second and third line blogs,. such as BitsBlog through those years. So, that being the level of communications, how does Bartlett justify his claim that, essentially, the white house was leading the right side of the sphere around by the snout? All of the first circle I've spoken with on the subject tell me their access to the WH has been limited at best... and Ed confirms it in his piece, here.
The only logical conclusion as to the conformity of the right side of the web to what the WH was selling was that what the WH was doing was the right thing, and the right side identified their actions as such... and simply spoke their mind... not because the WH was selling them anything and certainly not because the WH told the right side to sell a given point to their readership. Sorry, that story simply doesn't wash with the facts, nor doesit mesh with any empirical evidence that I've seen or heard of.
Bartlett in recent days strikes me as someone in self-justification mode... and certainly one who wants to sell books. I suppose he'll be selling a chunk of them to the left.... Who, it should be noted, have been making a lot of noise about how the right siders were in Bush's vest pocket... all based on Bartlett's comments.
He may have had a couple such bloggers, but I should think I'd have heard about such increased access he speaks of, years ago, and from the bloggers themselves. But, no. Nary a peep.
I'm forced by that to consider Bartlett's position suspect.
1. Until I blogged(2001), I had never heard of Chris Cillizza, but now I do know of him. I had never heard of Dan Balz until I read your post...I'm just saying.
2. Again, until I blogged, I hadn't heard of Hugh, but once I became familiar with his work, I looked for him in other areas of the media. He is a very talented intellectual.
The fact is that the media turned it's nose up at blogging, only to realize that they were wrong, and the WH realized that it needed the bloggers more than the bloggers needed them. I do believe in reading Bartletts response, that he in fact has never ventured into the blogosphere. Who is walking lockstep with the message that the WH is sending out?
IDIOTS.
GWB operates as though he has a base vocabulary of about 5000 words, and his limited range of communication skills really sets the tone for an administration which often acts as though they are a deer in the headlights.
The press conference on Iran & the NIE shows he cannot in clear and simple terms communicate with the American people, preferring to try to woo the hostile press or to state principles. Give the people red meat to either chew on or reject. But the mealy-mouthed shrugs and smirks just don't convey much besides frustration. And if George could just rouse up the conservative troops like an articulate cheerleader, rather than claiming to be a quarterback [I'm the decider..."]
GWB is no Tom Brady, and he certainly isn't a two-fer like Reagan.
I agree that the regurgitate is not a compliment, and hence Ed's displeasure. EEd is correct to be angry or disappointed. Obviously, Bartlett doesn't read blogs.
Since blogs offer opinion on facts or factoids provided by others, Bartlett is indeed saying that what he offered was put up without error.
This can be verified directly on Hugh Hewitt's blog -- all provided material are blockquoted with a nonwhite background, and his own commentary surrounds it in white.
So the communications director for Delay thought the right wing base was simply there to get manipulated and vote for whatever they told them to. I have to admit, you guys do a stand up job...
So many stories and leaks about how your conservative leadership really feels about their base that I can't believe you guys still back them... But I guess when you can blame everything on the liberal media, nothing you don't want to believe really sticks... does it?
I don't read Hewitt, but a quick visit to his blog verified what I suspected would be the case -- it's common for bloggers to blockquote verbatim, and then to analyze what they just quoted, and Hewitt does not deviate from this behavior.
The main violator I've found to this standard is Wonkette, where the quoted stuff and the analysis are seamlessly intertwined.
Bartlett probably wasn't being literal, rather he was probably referring to how the WH can put some info out and most right wing blogs will treat it as the absolute truth and base everything else off of the info (even if it's just white house spin)...
Sure you can blockquote text and then talk about it, but do they actually challenge the talking points the white house puts out; or do they just look for ways to make the point even stronger?
Proof positive that Hugh "The Platonic Shill" Hewitt is nothing but a trained parrot. Straight from the White House's mouth!
Perrrrrrr-fect!
Re-guuuuuuuur-gitate! I love it...
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
Of course, Hugh is too busy frantically trying to derail the Huckabee boom to even notice. Must...help...get...Mitt...nominated...
Tim Russert - "Pumpkinhead"
Chris Matthews - "Tweety"
Bill Kristol - "WIlliam The Bloody"
Jeff Goldstein -"Paste Eater"
Ben Domenech -"Box Turtle"