July 24, 2004
Opinion:
The 9/11 Commission Report, "New Media", and Thinking BEFORE Reacting...
By Jack GrantThis is not a comment on the 9/11 Commission Report itself. I have not yet had an opportunity to read it. This is a discussion of blogworld.
I am disgusted by the actions of many bloggers in reaction to the 9/11 Commission Report. During the hearings, many bloggers were decrying how "political" the process had become, how many commissioners were partisan, and how they expected the report to be essentially worthless because of a supposed bias. These very same bloggers are now quoting the 9/11 Commission Report to bludgeon their political opponents, with not a mea culpa among them admitting that by quoting the report in this way they are showing, according to them, that the report is NOT political, that the report IS worth something, that their initial ravings and conclusions they jumped to were wrong.
I have lost respect for these writers.
Blogging has been proudly proclaimed to be part of the so-called "new media" that supposedly corrects many of the faults of the old. If this behavior, which has been typical of the "new media" since I started reading it over a year ago, is a "correction" then give me the old media any day.
I am removing the worst offenders from my blogroll. Many of these sites are far more popular than mine, but I now suspect they got that way by pandering to base impulses of pummeling opponents instead of challenging people to do the hard work of actually thinking. I do my level best to challenge those who read what I write to think about what they believe, and I read the writings of those I do not agree with to challenge my own beliefs. I will not waste my time by reading the rantings of hypocrites, however, and I will not promote them on my weblog.
There are a few blogs that stand out among the crowd of blatherers as beacons of hope for the "new media", showing that it is possible to think before reacting and to do more than call your opposition names and "score points" against them.
Donnie, of Ain't Done It!, has taken a rational, reasonable, and respectable approach. He is reading the entire 9/11 Commission report and making sure he understands it before he comments on it. I don't always agree with Donnie (I don't always agree with ANYONE, but then as Lyndon Johnson said, if you find two men who agree on everything, you can be sure only one of them is doing the thinking), but I respect him and his point of view because he argues facts. He discusses the issues. He does not attack for the sake of attacking.
At The Politburo Diktat The Commissar is asking us all to take a deep breath before we react. His discussion of the Annie Jacobsen article and the reaction to it by bloggers is one of many attempts by him (some humorous, some serious) to throw a bit of retardant on the incipient flames of panicked over-reaction among bloggers.
John of Argghhh! refrained from commenting on the Annie Jacobsen furor until someone asked the same questions he had, and he wonders why those responsible for taking action in these circumstances chose essentially to not act, an eminently reasonable question that does more than simply add noise to the fury of self-important blather echoing in blogworld.
Juliette (I hope I spelled it right), at Baldilocks, also writes showing she is a strong believer in discussion, not winning at any and all costs and scoring "points" against your oppontents. In the comments to a post on the crash of Flight 93 from the 9/11 Commission report, she says, "Referring to those you disagree with or even mortally loath by proper, even seemingly respectful titles is a far more effective tactic towards the most important thing--getting the point across--than using epithets or belittling nicknames." In another post, she points out that you cannot sanction a dirty trick by your side while, at the same time, vilify the dirty tricks of your ideological opponents.
There are many other fine weblogs that are well worth reading, the ones listed above have recently shown very clearly how you can have strong beliefs and still think before writing. They have shown that blogging can be more than pointless ranting and reacting without thinking. I hope to be able to emulate them as much as possible.
UPDATE - 08:20, 27 July 2004: For a clarification of my views on the Annie Jacobsen imbroglio, please go here.
Posted by Jack Grant at 07:57 on 24 July 2004Jack,
You honor me greatly.
I'm not perfect in the area of hypocrisy. However, I hope that the lessons I've learned in life have served me well enough to know *when* I'm being hyocritical. That all we imperfect beings can ask.
Thank you.
Posted by: Juliette at July 24, 2004 08:32 AMThank you, Jack. I am triply complimented - to be mentioned by you thusly and to be named in the company of both John and Juliette. Wow! Made my whole day.
Posted by: The Commissar at July 24, 2004 02:44 PMHey, me too!
That said... one little quibble.
It was a partisan political process. It was flawed. But that doesn't that it had to be a worthless report, and that there weren't things useful to come out of it.
Half and half Republicans and Democrats. If you read/hear some of the commentary from the participants there are things like "Some things had be re-written in order to get a five-five vote."
So, you can decry the process and still use the result... sausage and law, Jack, sausage and law.
In fact, it's almost a perfect microcosm of how the legislative branch of government works.
What is more interesting to me (and this is where *I* would like to get the drafts and take 'em home to read) is how much different the final report is from the circulating drafts.
How much did the calculated leaking and the response to it shape the final document?
From what I've been able to glean, probably not a whole lot, once it was all said and done - because, at base, most of the people on the commission were trying to get the job done. But neither side was above using it for political purposes.
If I were one of the guilty parties, vice just crowing about the fact they agreed with me on Wahabism Delenda Est, I suspect the closest to a mea culpa I would come to is, "Well, despite the low standards I set for them, they managed to pull off a mediocre job."
Which - since I *want* government to muddle through, and not be horribly efficient in the legislative arena, is actually praise.
To finish off my tangents... because the bloggers you mentioned don't, for the most part, take the infotainment approach, is why we're 4rd tier bloggers... well-linked, but not overwhelmed with visits *or* moonbats.
In a sense, we're a nice microcosm of the news industry these days, too. If you stick to the news, and don't have a huge chunk of 'entertainment value' however generated, you aren't going to be 'big' - unless you were established early, like Glenn Reynolds, and to a lesser extent, Don Sensing. Which is okay, since we don't have to make money at this and compete for resources other than readers.
I tried being a little hotter than I am now, and I found I didn't like it. Same thing is true of Donnie, too. Juliette has always been Juliette, and the Commissar has an elliptical orbit, but nothing too eccentric, either! Howzat Jack, I snuck in a physics metaphor!
But, bottom line, I have to agree with you on the basics - I find I don't read some of the 'bigs' anymore - or at least I don't wade through the comments... filtering through all the "me too's!" and moonbattery just saps too much energy.
And I don't mind *not* having the moonbattery over at the Castle. Polite, even forceful, disagreement I don't mind. But I just don't need the pointless personal attacks. I have found though, generally, if you don't respond (at least on-line) but just argue, they'll either shift to arguing, or go away.
There's a doctoral thesis out there somewhere for someone who wants to study moonbat behaviors.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at July 24, 2004 04:08 PMErrata.
1. "But that doesn't that it..." should read: "But that doesn't mean that it..."
2. "4rd" should read: "3rd"
I accept no responsibility for opinionated errata!
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at July 24, 2004 04:14 PMI actually agree with what you say about the 9/11 Commission. I didn't go into it because the point of my post was about blogging and blogger behavior, not about the 9/11 Commission Report (hence the opening line of my post, "This is not a comment on the 9/11 Commission Report itself. I have not yet had an opportunity to read it. This is a discussion of blogworld.") I mis-spoke (mis-wrote?) when I said endorsing the report by quoting it was saying the report is "not political", but the people who are behaving in such a hypocritical fashion regarding the report are acting as if the report were "not political" since it supports *their* political views.
So your comment about decrying the process and still use the result is well taken. My point is towards those who were not only decrying the process but indeed had completely dismissed the report out of hand and are now using it to attack their opponents without even a simple admission that they were wrong in rejecting the report sight unseen weeks ago. I have no problems with those who said "I'll wait to see what the report says" and are now quoting that report.
I appreciate the comments of a "4th tier" blogger like yourself, since I'm a 5th or 6th tier blogger just trying to stay motivated when I see such bad behavior by the "big boys and girls".
Posted by: Jack at July 24, 2004 04:22 PM
