This, I learned, was the triumph that showed "how the Beltway press is
increasingly susceptible to pressure applied by the netroots": it seems
that a "blogswarm" forced a fatuous gasbag to demur slightly and
temporarily from his verbal attacks on a poor, defenseless, immensely
wealthy, well-connected United States senator who with the full and
eager backing of the nation's military-industrial establishment is one
step away from the presidency. Er, that's it.
But don't let's be cynical, as
Kruhulik the janitor might
say. After all, this gasbag-archon imbroglio is obviously the central
issue of our time — and we blogospherians had a definite if
infinitesimal effect on it for almost three whole hours or something!
Doesn't that mean that all our efforts in the past years have not been
in vain? Doesn't that make you feel empowered?
To riot in cliché, one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. Getting a
complete and utter non-entity like Chris Matthews to feel wiggly for a
minute before he goes right on collecting his fat checks for bloviating
in front a miniscule portion of the population? If this is victory, I'd
hate to see defeat.
I'm also a bit shocked by the analysis of the New Hampshire results
that sparked the "blogswarm;" i.e., that the large gap between polling
and actual vote count was the result of women getting mad at the
misogyny of a little-watched putz on TV. What's the actual upshot of
this take? "My, the little dears are just so flighty, aren't they?"
That seems almost on a par with Matthews' own juvenile cretinosity. For
my part, I much prefer the analysis offered by Mark Crispin Miller
in his remarkable interview with Scott Horton (of which more later, I hope):
There is no doubt that the op-scans were manipulated in the
New Hampshire primary, as Hillary won by six points where the votes
were counted by those gadgets, while Obama won by six points where the
ballots were hand-counted–and, contrary to a lot of comfy punditry,
there was actually no demographic factor that explains the difference.
(I suspect that Republicans manipulated the machines, to ensure that
Hillary will be the candidate they run against.)
One interesting point that came out in the Media Matters article was
that this "blogswarm" was essentially created by — a TV talking head.
According to the MM chronology, as the surprising New Hampshire returns
were coming in, Rachel Maddow, who was appearing on MSNBC, read some
angry comments about media Hillary-bashing on Josh Marshall's blog,
then brought up the point on the air. In other words, the swarm was not
originated by the blogosphere at all; instead, it was set off by
someone on an old-fashioned, mainstream broadcast media outlet.
What's also fascinating is how this concept of a "blogswarm" is
evidently regarded as something positive by "progressive" bloggers, of
all people. Surely this phenomenon was once known by another name:
"groupthink." It doesn't quite sound so positive like that, does it?
And the description of the swarm's creation is likewise less than
inspiring. Broken down to its essentials, it goes something like this:
"R said it on the TeeVee, then J put it on a blog, then P saw that and
put it on another blog, and then P was watching the TeeVee again and
heard them talking about the 'Bradley effect' so P made up this phrase,
'the Tweety Effect,' and put that on a blog — and then D saw it and put
it on a really big blog, and that sent it through the roof. Why, a day
or two later, P was even invited to talk about the whole thing on —
yes! — the TeeVee!"
Pam Spaulding, the originator of the phrase, was even proud of how this
"blogswarm" and its catchy tag aped the way that Republicans operate:
"It was a shorthand that people became comfortable with and
that's [what] Republicans are usually good at," says Spaulding.
"They're good at 'cut and run' and 'flip flopper.' They know how to use
the language and press it over and over again."
Hey, we can catapult the propaganda, too!
But maybe it's just me. Maybe I just don't get it. As I say, I don't
get out much — and I never step into the echo chamber of the American
broadcast media, unless I'm stuck in an airport somewhere with
inescapable CNN screens hanging down at every turn. But I'm afraid I've
never understood the libprogblog obsession with these blowhards on TV.
Oh, I enjoy rubber-necking at a good slap-down every now and then like
anyone else, I'm not denying that. (Falafels, anyone?) And sure, it's
useful to track whatever new lie is issuing forth from the bowels of
power, passing through the mouths of their servitors and sycophants.
But I'm continually surprised at the tremendous amount of energy and
passion that goes into these routine waste management activities.
I tend to suspect that the talking heads are not as powerful and
influential as many libprogbloggers seem to think. Anyone who would
actually be "influenced" by the likes of Chris Matthews is already an
idiot. It's not like these talk-show cretins are somehow magically
converting active, informed citizens of Madisonian hue and Jeffersonian
rigor into bovine chewers of conventional wisdom cud; Matthews' fans
are already chomping that cud, and they simply look to him and his ilk
for a fresh regurgitation of the same old slop. People who have a lick
of sense — people who might actually be moved and swayed by genuine
facts and penetrating insights about the grim realities of our time —
are not paying attention to the Chris Matthewses of this world anyway.
Thus it seems more productive to me (and again, this is just my
opinion) to concentrate your passion and energy and time on digging up
more facts, producing more insights into, say, the slaughter of a
million innocent people in a vast war crime being committed in your
name — or the torture being committed in your name — or the
evisceration of your Republic with the eager collusion of the very
party that you are rooting so hard for — than stinging Chris Matthews'
butt with a rubber-band as he's walking to his locker.
But hell, what do I know? I've never even been to a swarm. Maybe everything looks different from inside the groupmind.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
