I saw a reference at Steve Gilliard's News Blog about Instapundit suggestion/approving/whatever a boycott of DKos advertisers, over Kos' lack of sympathy for mercenaries killed on the job. I'm like, "Whoa!" and loking around to find out WTF that's all about.
Found the Kerry blog delinked Kos over it, and the thread give some detail but not enough. Finally got my data fix at The Blogging of the President:
On Friday, Glenn Reynolds, the conservative blogger Instapundit, was on the case, picking up from right-winger Michael Friedman. Reynolds, a moral leader of the right, suggested this was indicative of general hatred and rot on the left. Following Reynolds was Tacitus, the conservative blogger that most liberals find tolerable. Friedman instigated a campaign to remove the advertisers from Daily Kos, including several Congressional campaigns who had found success raising money there. The South Dakota GOP, the ones fighting Stephanie Herseth by complaining about her 'secret internet fundraising', put Markos's comments on the front page of their web site. Democratic advertisers couldn't wait to jump ship from Markos. Even John Kerry delinked him from the Kerry blog. Other Democrats joined in the chorus. Liberal Kevin Drum asked for an apology from Kos, as did Oliver Willis. Mark Kleiman, a well-respected blogger on the left, compared Markos to Ann Coulter. Seen in light of the history of Zuniga's service to his country and long honest track record versus Coulter's dishonest opportunism and consistent appeals to violence towards the left, this comparison is absurd. But with only one data point to use as a comparison, you can't distinguish between the two. [P6: per usual for BOP, mad links embedded]
But just as important as the detail is the analysis by Matt Stoller:
This attack on Markos was bound to happen; after all, a key strategy of any political movement is to destroy the ability of its opponent to marshal support, and the blogosphere for some reason helps the left more than the right. But the larger trend is worrisome. What we are seeing is the first time a blogger, albeit one who controls hundreds of thousands of dollars of resources and potentially millions more, is put under the microscope of the reactionary media, a media which we have already seen strips context. Unlike any other media personality, a blogger willingly puts his life online, and it is that context which builds the blog into an institution. No blogger can stand up to a distortionary spotlight. And so we see the unvarnished nature of blogs is under attack. Ironically, Michael Friedman, the right-wing blogger who started the campaign to remove advertising from dKos, is worried.There is a danger, however, that this will lead to retaliation. If I start selling blog ads next week will Kos's readers organize against me? Or perhaps more intelligently, will they start a campaign to get rid of Glenn Reynolds's advertisers? I hope not and even if they do I don't think it will be effective unless the target of the campaign gets seriously out of line with his posts like Kos did. I don't plan to do that and I hope Glenn Reynolds doesn't either.It's an interesting question he raises, about the responsibility advertisers have to monitor the content of the sites on which they advertise. This also includes linking; how responsible is a site for linking to another site which posts questionable content? These aren't new questions, but with the blogosphere writing down conversations that didn't use to get written down, they take on new meaning. Had Markos made this comment among friends, or in a speech, or even on talk radio, it's unlikely that anyone would have noticed. But with everyday discussions among friends subject to such intense public scrutiny, the question of context is amplified, because more and more free conversation is open to exploitation.Probably the most significant long term impact of this incident will be the warning it provides to all blogads buyers to be careful about where they purchase ads and to make sure that the blogs they choose are not likely to embarrass them.
Not that I shiv a gitz because not only do I not sell ads there is NO CHANCE IN HELL any official entity wants to be associated with me if I did.
But this is one reason I'm not a partisan of ANY political party. Don't take me for a Democrat just because I feel Bush's ignorance and the aggression of his puppeteers is the more immediate threat. And if you don't believe it, come back after the election.
Posted by P6 at April 4, 2004 05:43 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1151
Comments
I am aware that Kos caused a shitstorm of controversy recently, but I'm unfamiliar with the particulars.
I further deduce the storm began when he made a pejorative remark about the fate of the slaughtered mercenaries, who were killed during the past week in Iraq. I'm honestly unaquainted with the finer points of the dust-up.
But I have my own thoughts about the "hired help" in Iraq, that I just posted on Digby's 'Hulabaloo'. To wit (and I mean every word):
Personally, I don't give a damn about any "contractor", who, if the mood is upon them, can quit their job and catch the next flight out of Iraq.
Unlike our G.I.'s, those people run risks for mere lucre-- for blood money. They are the scum of the earth.
Rumsfeld's administration of the Pentagon is an ongoing Amateur Hour. That's why those people-- the "contractors"-- are there in the first place.
The Secretary of Defense is a swine, whose moral and intellectual shortcomings are writ Large, (as in) The Blood Of Strangers, both foreign and domestic.
He is as American as apple pie.
Sovereign Eye:
I like your definition of a mercenary better than the Geneva Convention's.
Posted by P6 at April 5, 2004 07:54 AMThe selective outrage of right-wing bloggers is quite tedious. If they showed that much outrage over the things that are said on a daily basis at sites like LGF, I might pay more attention.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at April 5, 2004 03:34 PMYou're so right, Al-M. I dropped past DIgby's myself. Tacitus was there, saying Kos "admitted no error beyond the semantic and tacitical." I just said Kos MADE no error other than semantic and tactical.
That's the truth. A man with his background is perfectly justified in disdaining mercenaries. And no one compelled to be there should be put at risk for optional combatants.
You get paid your money and you bought the repercussions, I always say…