You should be happy about this piece; it's basically a right-wing hit piece on liberal bloggers. The article ignores the obvious: that there are many different kinds of blogs. Some left blogs are "angry"; so are some right blogs (look at the unhinged anger of Michelle Malkin, angrier than any "angry leftist"). But the left blogosphere has dozens of policy-oriented blogs that performed brilliantly during the Social Security debate; the policy-wonk bloggers, like Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias helped sink Bush's social security plan by pointing out the problems with it. And Joshua Marshall has turned his blog into a clearing house for old-style "muckraking" on crooked politicians. Then we have the funny, snarky bloggers who are much funnier than anyone on the right, like Sadly, No! and Alicublog. Or how about electioneering strategy blogs like MyDD, or just plain well-written blogs like Digby and Orcinus and Billmon? The right blogosphere, obsessed with the myth that the media is liberal, has nothing to compare with the intelligence and variety of the lefty blogosphere.
The fact that the Washington Post could look at the incredible variety and diversity of the left blogsophere, and focus only on the "angry left," just shows how clueless and right-wing the Post has become: they constantly accept right-wing frames ("angry left") instead of looking at what's really going on.
Oh, and you really think Clinton didn't inspire unhinged anger on the right? Give me a break. Mainstream politicians asserted that Clinton was a rapist and murderer. There is hardly any "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (except on the right, where there is deranged love and worship of this mediocrity), but "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" was part of the mainstream right -- and still is.
That nasty right-wing Washington Post!!
I couldn't find anywhere that Bluto mentioned 'Hamlet' Clinton, but I am not privy to the secret messages.
I'll give you this, M.A.: you can write. You present your ideas well, even if those ideas are warped.
MA, you could make a better case if you avoided sounded unbalanced yourself by claiming the WaPo is "right-wing", and that the gross liberal bias of the traditional media is a "myth". Tell that to Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, Linda Foley, John Green, Mark Halperin...
And the biggest myth I've come across is that there are very many on the Left who have a sense of humor.
As for the Post being right-wing: the Post supported the Iraq war and the Alito nomination; it still supports the principles of the "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked war; it recently ran an editorial defending Bush's leaks against Joe Wilson (an editorial which contradicted the facts in the court filings and in its own news reporting). The Washington Post is a conservative paper now, not surprising considering that its editor is conservative and its publisher is growing more conservative.
As for humor on the left, sorry, but must of the "funny" blogs are liberal in perspective. Sadly No! for example. These blogs are funny, not angry, whereas when right-wingers try to be funny they just wind up sounding angry.
One or two non-partisan articles do not offset thousands of lefty ones, they're just fig leaves intended to simulate balance. Next, you'll be explaining to me why the NYT and LAT are conservative.
Seriously, such a completely off-the-wall assertion makes you sound like a loon. Try to overcome your anger and hatred long enough for a more rational analysis.
And MA, trying to argue who's funniest is funny in itself, though, since ALL humor is based on schadenfreude, it may not be something you want to claim for the Left.
No, the Post has been consistently pro-Bush in its positions. This is not a "balance" thing: the paper has supported Bush's major policies for years now. It is almost as conservative as the Wall Street Journal editorial page; and it is not "loony" to say so unless you believe the "liberal media" myth.
The fact is that The mainstream media consistently presents pro-Bush storylines. If you want to demonstrate otherwise, then prove it.
And I don't know that humor is based on schadenfreude. Quite the opposite; it's often based on the relatively powerless mocking the powerful, in the sense that a cat may look at a king. Part of the problem with right-wing "humor" is that they spend all their time mocking the powerless (Democrats, obscure liberal professors, Barbra Streisand). Hard to be funny when you're shooting fish in a barrel.
MA, step away from the bong, man. Seriously, it's impossible to have a conversation with someone who has such a grossly warped world view.
I realize you think you're doing damage control, but keep in mind that the WaPo piece is an apologia for unhinged, and frankly in many cases, treasonous behavior on the Left.
Sidenote: I am prepared to prove that any instnace of humor you can cite is based on taking pleasure in the misfortune of others.
The WaPo piece is not an "apologia"; it's an attempt to push a right-wing meme: that opposition to Bush and his policies makes one part of the "angry left" and only crazed, irrational people oppose Bush. This is of course ridiculous -- opposition to Bush is now the mainstream view in this country -- but par for the course for a newspaper that constantly accepts right-wing frames.
And if you want to argue that the WaPo is liberal, stop calling me names (why is it that righties always feel a need to call their opponents deranged, unbalanced, mentally ill, stoned, etc) and prove it. The Peter Daou pieces I linked to cite many instances of right-wing bias in the MSM. Where's the left-wing bias?
Hmmm, I guess by your "logic", Al Franken is a rightie because he openly advocated interrogating captured terrorists with "a red hot poker up the ass".
I see only two possible reasons for your insistence that the WaPo is conservative: either you're simply being disingenuous, or you are in fact, delusional. This isn't intended as hyperbole, simply deduction based on your comments.
Wow M.A., you are persistant. I don't generally feel the need to call lefties names, but calling the Washington Post right-wing is quite a surprise. Hold on to your tinfoil while I search for a media survey that I saw a couple months back.
Media Bias is real according to a UCLA Political Scientist. Apparently the Post is just a bit left of center.
"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8 )."
Again, nobody seems very interested in proving that the WaPo is liberal. And don't quote another survey of voting patterns among reporters, because the point is not how reporters vote but how they write. If they accept right-wing frames and build their stories around them, then they are not "liberal" reporters, even if they are liberal in the voting booth. Also, since the WaPo's editor is conservative and the publisher, Donald Graham, has become a conservative in recent years, the influence at the paper is toward the right, not the left.
Man, I just got dismissed by someone who calls WaPo right-wing. I'll have to fire extra rounds at the range to recover my self-esteem.
I have been silent because I don't read the Washington Post. I get all my news at dreadpundit.blogspot.com!
Although I should point out, the only thing I don't like about this site is that it's too left wing compared to NPR and the New York Times.
I find it endlessly entertaining to watch the left have fits about the "right wing media". First it was Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio, then it was Fox News, then it was the evil Blogosphere. Anyone with an eye half way open can see what their shrieking means - they've lost their monopoly on public opinion, and they're freaking out about it.
I haven't watched ABC, NBC or CBS news in at least ten years, literally. I got so sick of the bias (even before it was widely discussed) that I decided I was never going to get a straight story from them.
Commenting by HaloScan
