Blogging: Path to the Holy Grail
Accurately measuring public opinion is the holy grail of politics: we all know what it looks like, we all want to get there and we all have different views of how to get there and what it means. Some will say that if you know public opinion, you can hear what people are concerned about and govern from there. Others say that if you know the hearts and minds of the public, you know how how to get them to agree with you. Either way, trying to figure out the aggregate or unified public opinion as accurately as possible is the desire of every political operative since the dawn of time. Traditionally, using voodoo mathematics, pollsters would decide a certain number of voters would represent the whole of the voting population. The trick being, you had to call people on the phone, make them sit through a bunch of questions and make sure they paid attention. So, poll accuracy has never been the greatest, going all the way back to Dewey Defeats Truman. Polls said Obama was way ahead in New Hampshire, but that went to Clinton. Polls said Obama was closing in on California, but she ended up beating him by one of her bigger margins. Polls said it was a close race in Wisconsin, but he blew hew out there by 17 percentage points. But we have more than polls now to tell the pundits what the average person thinks, now we have blogs. Yes, this delicious, destructive and delirious new medium allows just about anyone to write what they feel, believe, and feel like saying to be read by one and all. And now, of course, in a perverse mirror effect, the mass media read the blogs, the blogs respond to the media coverage, then the blogs reflect back the coverage, and so on until we all get bored or something new comes along.
The best recent example of this is the McCain-Iseman story. Vicki Iseman was a lobbyist friend of McCain's who was close to the campaign in 2000 whom allegedly aides were concerned about to the point of warning her away from the campaign. The New York Times article hinted at a sexual affair between the two and the general impropriety of the a lobbyist and Senator Anti-Lobbyist hanging out together so much. The blogs responded, especially some jackass of a blogger. Then the mainstream media covered the blog coverage of it all. And this will all go on until there's another story out there to grab our attention. The problem is, this one has possible sex, influence peddling and loss of integrity, all the things we love to read about. The problem is, the self-proclaimed Newspaper of Record started to act like a blog, printing unsubstantiated rumor as possible fact. While some blogs are held to a higher standard than that, the average blog can print whatever it damn well feels like since people hold them less accountable. Fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck. See?
The main problem with blogs is that there is no credentialing process for the bloggers. No degrees are necessary, no "sniff test" for what they write about and certainly no kind of accountability for a badly written story. Take, for example, some bloggers writing about Obama's alleged communist leanings. No one in mainstream politics has been able to really hit Obama with something that would stick. Peopel tried the Rezko dealings and that didn't work. People tried to make a story out of Obama's middle name being Hussein and no one really cared. And at the debate in Texas, Hillary tried to make a big deal out of alleged plagiarism and it went over like a lead balloon. Yes, she was booed and jeered when she tried the "change you can Xerox" line right after accusing him of using other scripted material. If that line wasn't written by one of her top speechwriters, policy directors or other staffer then tested and scored, I'll eat my hat. (which I don't want to do since it's a replica Brooklyn Dodgers ballcap).
And now Hillary can know exactly how badly the line went over by reading all the blogs written right after she said it. Every blogger who wanted could have written a scathing excoriation or sycophantic paean about the line. The media could all determine immediately how to cover it. Before, they'd have to make an opinion, then public would mull it over then respond in letters to the editor or over dinner tables. Now, there's a mean to gauge some public opinion as soon as little fingers can type little opinions from little minds. So, people write, others respond and we have some kind of banter and measure of public reception going. But, like the old days, it's inaccurate to the whole because not everyone blogs and most of those who do are politically active and with it. Kind of like the people who sit through polling calls rather than sitting through dinner. Bloggers are mostly people who'd rather sit and write online than have a real life. Lives are for people who don't know how to have fun in politics.
Blogs do let more and more average people make their voices heard in the political world. Like voting, everyone can get one and they tend to be measured as an aggregate rather than by specifics. It does count as a voice but like everything else it needs to be measured and thought about before jumped into. Too many political blogs out there are junk. PJ O'Rourke in an interview a few years ago said "Blogs are free. . .and worth it" and he's dead right. This blog is pretty meaningless. I try to keep a high standard for myself, use notable, real sources and try to correct a lot of misperceptions I see out there. But, let's face it, I'm doing this because I can't get a job at a reputable place that will give me a column on day one (which is basically what this is, a low brow column). But it is a gauge of some kind of opinion out there. This blog is little more than a lonely voice, and almost drowned out by the choir of other blogs, but there is a hope that as more people talk, the more real facts get out and the more intelligent the overall conversation can get.
Of course, given most American politics, the voices just get louder and angrier, not smarter.
So it is written, so do I see it.
The best recent example of this is the McCain-Iseman story. Vicki Iseman was a lobbyist friend of McCain's who was close to the campaign in 2000 whom allegedly aides were concerned about to the point of warning her away from the campaign. The New York Times article hinted at a sexual affair between the two and the general impropriety of the a lobbyist and Senator Anti-Lobbyist hanging out together so much. The blogs responded, especially some jackass of a blogger. Then the mainstream media covered the blog coverage of it all. And this will all go on until there's another story out there to grab our attention. The problem is, this one has possible sex, influence peddling and loss of integrity, all the things we love to read about. The problem is, the self-proclaimed Newspaper of Record started to act like a blog, printing unsubstantiated rumor as possible fact. While some blogs are held to a higher standard than that, the average blog can print whatever it damn well feels like since people hold them less accountable. Fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck. See?
The main problem with blogs is that there is no credentialing process for the bloggers. No degrees are necessary, no "sniff test" for what they write about and certainly no kind of accountability for a badly written story. Take, for example, some bloggers writing about Obama's alleged communist leanings. No one in mainstream politics has been able to really hit Obama with something that would stick. Peopel tried the Rezko dealings and that didn't work. People tried to make a story out of Obama's middle name being Hussein and no one really cared. And at the debate in Texas, Hillary tried to make a big deal out of alleged plagiarism and it went over like a lead balloon. Yes, she was booed and jeered when she tried the "change you can Xerox" line right after accusing him of using other scripted material. If that line wasn't written by one of her top speechwriters, policy directors or other staffer then tested and scored, I'll eat my hat. (which I don't want to do since it's a replica Brooklyn Dodgers ballcap).
And now Hillary can know exactly how badly the line went over by reading all the blogs written right after she said it. Every blogger who wanted could have written a scathing excoriation or sycophantic paean about the line. The media could all determine immediately how to cover it. Before, they'd have to make an opinion, then public would mull it over then respond in letters to the editor or over dinner tables. Now, there's a mean to gauge some public opinion as soon as little fingers can type little opinions from little minds. So, people write, others respond and we have some kind of banter and measure of public reception going. But, like the old days, it's inaccurate to the whole because not everyone blogs and most of those who do are politically active and with it. Kind of like the people who sit through polling calls rather than sitting through dinner. Bloggers are mostly people who'd rather sit and write online than have a real life. Lives are for people who don't know how to have fun in politics.
Blogs do let more and more average people make their voices heard in the political world. Like voting, everyone can get one and they tend to be measured as an aggregate rather than by specifics. It does count as a voice but like everything else it needs to be measured and thought about before jumped into. Too many political blogs out there are junk. PJ O'Rourke in an interview a few years ago said "Blogs are free. . .and worth it" and he's dead right. This blog is pretty meaningless. I try to keep a high standard for myself, use notable, real sources and try to correct a lot of misperceptions I see out there. But, let's face it, I'm doing this because I can't get a job at a reputable place that will give me a column on day one (which is basically what this is, a low brow column). But it is a gauge of some kind of opinion out there. This blog is little more than a lonely voice, and almost drowned out by the choir of other blogs, but there is a hope that as more people talk, the more real facts get out and the more intelligent the overall conversation can get.
Of course, given most American politics, the voices just get louder and angrier, not smarter.
So it is written, so do I see it.