apparently got up on the wrong side of the bed, didn't get enough coffee, or something. He decided to take it upon himself to put bloggers in their place because "bloggers aren't journalists."
Bloggers spread rumors, are partisan, and juvenile. The Mainstream Media is none of that.
Now stop laughing. I'm being serious.
All of blogs Enberg cites, save for Drudge which we all know to be fairly unpredictable but very interesting, were left-of-center. Kos
, and Sullivan
all at the minimum tacitly endorsed Kerry if not outright doing so. So of COURSE they would be jumping with glee at the early exit polls. And crying in their cocktails as the night wore on.
He compared the comments and posts to listening to a CB radio. Speaking without facts, chattering about nothing.
He didn't mince words and neither will I - Eric Enberg is full of it. There are serious bloggers out there doing good investigative work, from both sides and to brand them all as silly, childish, and like grenades with the pins removed "dangerous and unpredictable" is extremely unfair. INDC
, Bill Hobbs
, Glenn Reynolds
, The Belmont Club
and Volokh Conspiracy
- they are covering stories that the MSM refused to cover: the Swift Boat Vets and Voter Registration Fraud for example.
And there are bloggers who you wonder "should we take away their computer access?" I believe one of Vox's friends calls them 'navel gazers.'
It seems to me that Mr. Enberg, writing at CBS, is probably bitter because the blogosphere hit that network pretty hard this year. He accuses the blogs of running with bad numbers in the exit polls when experienced journalists know better.
Hey Eric - did you share that advice with Dan Rather? He could use the refresher after that whole bogus National Guard story that the BLOGS broke. Pot calling kettle! Line 1.
More examples that Eric failed to consider:
“The truth is, while Kerry may have taken a hit in the polls as a result of the largely bogus criticism of his war record, Bush, as the incumbent, is not as vulnerable — even if the accusations are more credible....The breathless debate over typewriter fonts last week shifted the debate away from Bush’s questionable record.”
— Time’s Amanda Ripley in the September 20 issue.
Translation: ignore Kerry. He doesn't have to answer any criticism - just bash Bush.
The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz: “You’ve said on the program Inside Washington that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as ‘young and dynamic and optimistic,’ that that’s worth maybe 15 points.”
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: “Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. But I do think that, I do think that the mainstream press, I’m not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don’t think it’s worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say.”
Kurtz: “Is it worth five points?”
Thomas: “Maybe, maybe.”
– Exchange on CNN’s Reliable Sources, October 17.
And to use words like "arch-conservative"
makes those that are to the right sound like Lex Luther.
So, what is the future for the blogosphere? There will continue to be those very elite few that are of national importance. The rest of us will continue to post stories about our lives, our pets, funny pictures, our opinions and point out the obvious hypocrisy in news stories for our own amusement.
Just like how reality TV had to adapt to the spoiler boards, MSM will have to adapt.