NYT: Conservative Blogs are More Effective

New York Times ^ | December 11, 2005 | MICHAEL CROWLE

[West Coast Conservative]

When the liberal activist Matt Stoller was running a blog for the Democrat Jon Corzine's 2005 campaign for governor, he saw the power of the conservative blogosphere firsthand. Shortly before the election, a conservative Web site claimed that politically damaging information about Corzine was about to surface in the media. It didn't. But New Jersey talk-radio shock jocks quoted the online speculation, inflicting public-relations damage on Corzine anyway. To Stoller, it was proof of how conservatives have mastered the art of using blogs as a deadly campaign weapon.

That might sound counterintuitive. After all, the Howard Dean campaign showed the power of the liberal blogosphere. And the liberal-activist Web site DailyKos counts hundreds of thousands of visitors each day. But Democrats say there's a key difference between liberals and conservatives online. Liberals use the Web to air ideas and vent grievances with one another, often ripping into Democratic leaders. (Hillary Clinton, for instance, is routinely vilified on liberal Web sites for supporting the Iraq war.) Conservatives, by contrast, skillfully use the Web to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates. They are generally less interested in examining every side of every issue and more focused on eliciting strong emotional responses from their supporters.

But what really makes conservatives effective is their pre-existing media infrastructure, composed of local and national talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, the Fox News Channel and sensationalist say-anything outlets like the Drudge Report - all of which are quick to pass on the latest tidbit from the blogosphere. "One blogger on the Republican side can have a real impact on a race because he can just plug right into the right-wing infrastructure that the Republicans have built," Stoller says.

[Bahbah]

Notice how he says liberal blogs debate ideas ... even to the point of being critical of their own. But conservative blogs use emotion to defeat the opponant ... without debate.

Just flip that and you'll have the truth.

[Sofa King]

"I've heard this garbage before."

More times than I could ever remember. Liberals can't ever admit what their problems are. Every time they start to address the issue, they wind up spending all of their time and energy giving themselves back-handed compliments instead. They're either too smart, too civil, or too darned nuanced to win over the American public.

[GoforBroke]

The mother of all rebuttals CANDIDATE FOR DUMBEST NYTIMES PIECE EVER By Michelle Malkin · December 11, 2005 11:10 AM On Friday, Editor and Publisher hyped this Sunday NYTimes magazine piece by Michael Crowley about the influence of conservative vs. liberal blogs. Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman offer stiff competition on a weekly basis, but Crowley's embarrassing little squib (283 words) has to be one of most insipid, shallow, and uninformed wastes of space to grace the NYTimes' pages. Based on a single "expert" source--"liberal activist Matt Stoller"--Crowley makes sweeping assertions about the content, nature, effectiveness, and media penetration of partisan blogs. Liberal blogs criticize Democrats more, while conservatives march in lockstep with the GOP leadership to "to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates," the piece asserts. What? Clue-by-four for you, Mr. Crowley: A name that rhymes with Marriet Hyers. Another dose of reality for the clueless Crowley: Technorati search - Bush + open borders + amnesty. And another: The fissures in the conservative blogosphere over Terri Schiavo. And another: Porkbusters. Anyone who swallows the idea that conservative bloggers are an organized arm of the Republican machine who are easily mobilized at the command of Karl Rove does not read conservative blogs--and should not be paid by the NYTimes or anyone else to write about them. But hey, since when did the NYTimes let ignorance get in the way of its "journalism." Crowley goes on to conclude: ...what really makes conservatives effective is their pre-existing media infrastructure, composed of local and national talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, the Fox News Channel and sensationalist say-anything outlets like the Drudge Report - all of which are quick to pass on the latest tidbit from the blogosphere. "One blogger on the Republican side can have a real impact on a race because he can just plug right into the right-wing infrastructure that the Republicans have built," Stoller says. Yup, it's that darned Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, again. Three syllables for you, Mr. Crowley: BWAH-HAH-HAH. Hate to bother Mr. Crowley and his editors with some facts, but here's Matt Drudge on blogs from a Sunday London Times interview in April 2005: Back in the 1990s Drudge was a believer in the empowering potential of the internet. In a speech he said, “We have entered an era vibrating with the din of small voices. Every citizen can be a reporter, can take on the powers that be.” Now he sounds disillusioned and says that the “din” is growing into a cacophony: “There’s a danger of the internet just becoming loud, ugly and boring with a thousand voices screaming for attention.” He is no fan of the blogging phenomenon (weblogs linking sites): “I don’t read them. I like to create waves and not surf them. And who are these influential bloggers? You can’t name one because they don’t exist.” Blog links on the Drudge Report are extremely rare. Glenn Reynolds' observation is right: "Drudge is, in fact, pretty aloof where the blogosphere is concerned." Citations of conservative bloggers' work on Rush Limbaugh are increasing, but also very rare. And appearances by non-MSM bloggers on Fox News Channel are few and far between. (CNN has assigned reporters who cover blogs. MSNBC featured bloggers regularly on the recently canceled Connected: Coast to Coast. Fox has a few in-house blogs. But when I'm booked to appear, the majority of producers have no idea I have a blog--and I have good reason to believe that the same goes for most if not all of the network's senior management. So much for VWRC collusion.) Some of the most high-impact blogging by conservatives this year got little, if any, buzz in the conservative "media infrastructure." Case in point: Ed Morrissey's ground-breaking work on the Canadian Adscam scandal. And when conservative bloggers did organize for a single cause this year, it wasn't to advance GOP interests. It was to raise money--more than 1,800 blogs raised more than $1.3 million--for Hurricane Katrina victims. If sensationalist say-anything Crowley was trying to convey the impression of familiarity with the blogosphere and pay a back-handed compliment to conservative blogs, he failed miserably. There is a good piece to be written about the fascinating cacophony of conservative and liberal voices in the political blogosphere and their real/imagined impact on current affairs. Crowley's lousy piece of toilet paper sheet-sized opinionating was not it. *** P.S. Did the NYTimes pay for Crowley's brain dropping? How much? And what yahoo thought it was worth hyping in E&P? TrackBack <8> http://michellemalkin.com/

[FlingWingFlyer]

They are generally less interested in examining every side of every issue...

Opposing the closure of buggy whip factories because it will put unskilled workers out of a job sounds pretty silly to me.

[Porterville]

strong emotional responses

Until they admit it is STRONG TRUTH these liberals will never win.

[Theresawithanh]

I occasionally don my HAZMAT suit and go over to DU for laffs. I've seen rare instances where some poster will call somebody else on their raging rant, IOW, try to talk a little sense, or I guess you could call it what passes for sense over there. My opinion is that most of them over there are insane asylum inmates with access to computers.

[DCPatriot]

At DU they don't even allow you to post if you're not a lib.

And that's different from our beloved FreeRepublic in what manner?

[knews_hound]

You forgot research.

We have more than just our opinions to work with.

Cheers,

knews hound

Latest Article "The Rope a Dope Gambit"

[Maceman]

Jeez. If the Democrats can't even handle a little competition in the blogosphere, how the hell can we trust them to handle Islamic fascist governments that are armed with nukes, to say nothing of al Qaeda and all the rest of the caliphiles?

[popdonnelly]

"Notice how he says liberal blogs debate ideas .."

Ideas such as Bush is a fascist, there were no WMDs, everyone who doesn't think like us is a moron, etc.

[popdonnelly]

DU is pointless. It only exists to make Bush haters feel good about themselves.

[vbmoneyspender]

But Democrats say there's a key difference between liberals and conservatives online. Liberals use the Web to air ideas and vent grievances with one another, often ripping into Democratic leaders.

I stopped right there. Could someone tell me if the next sentence says that conservatives use blogs to argue that Democrats are killing people for oil or that conservatives use blogs to argue that Democrats are destroying the environment in order to increase corporate profits or that conservatives use blogs to argue that Democrats are bankrupting the country in order to cut taxes for their wealthy supporters. Because I could swear that I've seen those arguments made by bloggers -- I'm just not sure if it was conservative bloggers making them.

[speedy]

These guys will never get it. They can't even be honest with themselves. I don't see how they can win in the long run if they are truly this self-deluded.

[mrsmith]

"he can just plug right into the right-wing infrastructure that ..." Jim Robinson has built.

FR is under attack as never before for good reason.

[Stayingawayfromthedarkside]

We all know Democrats don't do those things. They are for the will of the people.

[willyd]

You are exactly right. I posted a link to an article about uranium in Iraq and simply asked what anyone thought about the article and they booted me. I didn't even express an opinion about it myself. Conservative blogs do well because they encourage rational debate and thought. (Something that seems to come more easily for Conservatives than Demmies for whatever reason.)

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[Liberals use the Web to air ideas and vent grievances with one another, often ripping into Democratic leaders. (Hillary Clinton, for instance, is routinely vilified on liberal Web sites for supporting the Iraq war.)

Conservatives, by contrast, skillfully use the Web to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates. They are generally less interested in examining every side of every issue and more focused on eliciting strong emotional responses from their supporters.]

What nonsense. Actually, the reverse is more than true. All one need do is to compare and contrast Democrat Underground vs Free Republic.

It is obvious even to the most casual observer that conservatives engage in rational discussion of the issues while Liberals for the most part engage in fruitless emotional tirades.

[mmercier]

But what really makes conservatives effective is their pre-existing media infrastructure, composed of local and national talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, the Fox News Channel and sensationalist say-anything outlets like the Drudge Report

Strange how the conservative infrastructure is all new media and ABC CBS NBC CNN NYT et al have been in control for generations and are not considered leftist infrastructure. A leftist infrastructure that appears to fall down face first as soon as people have an option other then their coordinated communist mantra.

[HTuttle]

These guys will never get it. They can't even be honest with themselves. I don't see how they can win in the long run if they are truly this self-deluded.

Indeed. The first step to compensate for a bias is to admit that you have one. And they will never, never, never go there.