In Politics, the Web Is a Parallel World With Its Own Rules (NY Times whines ...Bush hits Kerry )

The New York Times ^ | February 22, 2004 | JIM RUTENBERG

[NYCVirago]

Funny how the mainstream media has no problem running with Michael Moore's internet smears, because they're against Bush!

[Wally_Kalbacken]

When the Web was in its infancy, Internet utopians envisioned a political revolution, predicting that the new medium would engage and empower voters as never before...

The most egregious of this brand of utopian bullshit was disseminated in Wired magazine. Simply incredible stuff about citizens being transformed into "netizens' and the like. None of that vision came to pass, and rather amazingly Wired still exists, but is not offering apologies.

The conventional press was swallowing a similar magnitude of bullshit regarding the alleged brilliance of Joe Trippi and his use of the internet in the late and not so great Howard Dean for President campaign. I looked at all their web offerings and could see nothing that was innovative or revolutionary to any remarkable extent. When Dean imploded and fizzled out after Wisconsin - there were some wire service stories about how the campaign had channeled $7.5M of it's campaign expenditures through Trippi's campaign consulting firm (probably earning his firm a $10% commission on media buys). That was remarkable news - but no mainstream press outlet could understand Trippi's self-dealing as raising any ethical concern. But they can still show their ignorance of the internet by continuing to suggest that the Dean campaign's use of it was revolutionary. I suppose it was - use a communications channel to aggregate $40M +  and then smoke it to no effect.

[jocon307]

And what about the DNC ad that showed Bush pushing the old lady in the wheelchair down the stairs? That's so old nobody remembers it. But I think that was the first one.

[Prodigal Son]

Look at DU then look at FR. World of difference.

Did you ever notice that a great deal of their discussion threads are questions? I find that the starkest contrast. It seems they are always wondering what the answer is.

It leads one to realize that they are lost. They have no definitive statements to make about anything, only those insipid questions.

'Will Bush allow elections?'

Also, if you visit their foreign affairs discussion board, you will note that practically no foreign affairs topic gets any replies. There seems to be two posters over there that religiously post threads about various countries in Africa, Asia and elswhere but they never seem to get any replies. Only threads about Israel get any discussion.

The rest of the time, they are almost singularly focused on Bush, Bush, Bush.

I'm reminded of Conan the Barabarian when James Earl Jones points out to Conan that since his whole life has been devoted to killing Jones, once he is dead, Conan will have no reason to live. It's kind of like that with the DUers. If it were not for Bush, they would have no 'reason to be' over there.

[Prodigal Son]

None of that vision came to pass, and rather amazingly Wired still exists, but is not offering apologies.

None of that came to pass- yet. The future is out there.

[cyborg]

I agree. There's no substantive discussion of anything going on. BTW, wonder how that liberal talk radio is coming along!