Concern Trolls

Jon Chait gets bitten then bites back:

Some would suggest that the right's newfound obsession with tone is not only hypocritical but an attempt to stifle criticism through arbitrary criteria, much like campus PC-niks. But I would not suggest that because that would be an angry thing to say, and I do not want to do any more damage to civil discourse than I already have.

Quite so. Normally, though, it seems to me that bloggers get bitten thusly, from time to time by Chait. It's obviously true that the blogosphere (and especially its progressive arm) involves a degree of vulgarity that wouldn't pass muster on television or in print, but the actual significance of this tends to escape me. Nevertheless, a lot of MSM types seem to enjoy pointing to this arbitrary stylistic difference between bloggers and "real" writers as a means of pre-empting consideration of criticism.

Comments

Clinton hatred was part of the Old Anger.

NRO is talking about the New Anger.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 8, 2007 10:30 AM

Journalists arent' really writers, they are technical draftsmen. They understand spelling and grammar, but that's really it. Theres nothing of themselves in their work, save perhaps transparent bias. The words they use are all the same, as are the phrases. They're just copying other peoples work and writing down what other people have said. It makes sense, even ideally. They are meant to convey information, so their work should more closely resemble a car owners manual than a great novel. But it's still the not the same thing as sitting down, Creating the personalities for various characters and trying to create something new, something that's yours. It's not even using your own phrases and words and telling a story about someone or something from the past. It's hard to take criticism from people who, for the most part, would be writing if they could actually write.

Posted by soullite | January 8, 2007 10:34 AM

Chait just served Wood his own head on a plate.

Posted by Dave | January 8, 2007 10:43 AM

"It's obviously true that the blogosphere (and especially its progressive arm) involves a degree of vulgarity that wouldn't pass muster on television or in print, but the actual significance of this tends to escape me."

Rewrite this as "It's obviously true that talk radio (and especially its right-wing arm) involves a degree of vulgarity that wouldn't pass muster on television [sic] or in print, but the actual significance of this tends to escape me." The problem here is that vulgarity is used not because it's persuasive, but because it's personally satisfying or because it can be used to bully people. And if talk radio's "standards" of civic discourse have hopelessly corrupted the public square [as they arguably have], is it any less the case with the "progressive" blogosphere? It doesn't look at a big deal in your closed universe, but try looking from the outside, instead of simply dismissing anyone else who does.

Posted by David | January 8, 2007 10:46 AM

Fuckin' A.

Posted by Jim Henley | January 8, 2007 10:50 AM

Whatever.

I think Republicans, who lack the simple courtesy to refer to the Democratic party by its correct name, should be laughed at when they attempt to lecture anyone about civility.

I mean, if the Republican party wants to be Miss Manners, they should really start with themselves.

Posted by anonymous | January 8, 2007 10:52 AM

Seriously... I think 'vulgarity' is a signal that people are speaking for themselves rather than any institution. As in "... and this is my fucking opinion"

Posted by MattF | January 8, 2007 10:55 AM

I use vulgarity because spitting in their faces and punching them is a felony.

Posted by owlbear1 | January 8, 2007 10:59 AM

Vulgar is Bush uttering the word "bi-partisan"?

Posted by Fred F. | January 8, 2007 11:20 AM

"Journalists arent' really writers, they are technical draftsmen. They understand spelling and grammar, but that's really it."

"They're just copying other peoples work and writing down what other people have said."

That might be the case if journalists weren't reasoning, opinion-forming human beings and if world situations weren't complex and multi-sided. But this isn't the case, and so journalists are going to make choices, and necessarily so, about what information they are going to convey and reinforce and what they will exclude and degrade. Every journalistic act is an editorial act, which makes the stenography ideal impossible, not to say pernicious.

Posted by Mark | January 8, 2007 11:25 AM

Chait's a jackass. Nice that he's come around to our side; telling that he made the move once the non-DLC Dems started winning.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 8, 2007 11:54 AM

Wood's NRO piece is very poorly written. There's nothing in it that suggests that Chait is particularly angry -- not much in the way of quotation from his pieces, and of course TNR's wall prevents some of us from going back to the source material. Nor does he show in any way that Chait's anger, such as it is, is atypical or influential.

But more fundamentally, it is just incredibly obtuse to write a piece about anger in politics and then to say nothing about talk radio or television, but rather to focus on a magazine article. Anger is the raison d'etre of talk radio. Granted, the story is an old one by now, but that's where the anger is. And political coverage on television thrives on conflict, which surely has something to do with the angry tone of things lately. Again, not a new story, and not one you can write with a few hyperlinks passing as research. But who is the more paradigmatic angry figure: Jonathan Chait, or Ann Coulter? Whose tone has been more influential? Sold more books?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | January 8, 2007 11:54 AM

I have to admit that I find it terribly difficult to seriously consider an argument that starts by comparing Howard Dean's "anger" to Anne Coulter's and then continues by claiming that the Right keeps their angry talking heads on the margins. Those two claims pretty strongly underline the bias that serves as the basis for the rest of the article.

Posted by socratic_me | January 8, 2007 12:04 PM

I find conservative's and MSM's "concern" about the civility in blogs very amusing.

Foaming at the mouth, violence spewing right wing jihadists have dominated the airwaves for two decades now. Turn on talk radio, cable talk shows. They are demonizing Dems/liberals, calling them traitors, in some cases inciting violence.

Where were the concern trolls during the 90s when right wing blondes were pulling out their hair on cable TV? Where were they when Anne Coulter called for President Clinton's assassination? They were all having a good laugh and excusing the Coulters and Limbaughs as entertainers.

To my knowledge Daily Kos has not called for the assassination of Bush. And yet they insist he is the poisoning public discourse. We see this false equivalence when they compare Michael Moore or Howard Dean to Anne Coulter. Coulter regularly calls for the murder of people she disagrees with. Needless to say Moore and Dean do not. And yet we see this false comparison all the time, including in the pages of TNR.

What is happening is simple. For decades corporate media had the power to define "responsible" liberalism to its own liking. Lieberman was a responsible liberal and anybody to his left was fringe left. That changed with the Internet. The public is no longer buying Lieberman/TNR/Broder as representatives of liberalism. And unlike in the old days they have real choices. They can read Talking Points Memo or Matthew Yglesias or dozens of other blogs. Corporate media doesn't like it one bit.

Posted by DonB | January 8, 2007 12:14 PM

Just let me say it and get it out of the way: Fuck you, Chait.

(aka Global Citizen)

Posted by Blue Girl, Red State | January 8, 2007 12:17 PM

BTW, it is totally understandable why Wood and his ilk do not like the new fighting liberals of the internet.

These people are used to a template where someone like Kate O'Beirne or Bob Novak or both would go on Meet the Press and they would be paired with David Broder for "balance". This is still the current template in the MSM. TV shows invite 2-3 foaming at the mouth partisan conservatives and pair them with either a Broder or a non partisan journalist for balance. The decks is heavily stacked in their favor and they like it that way. Internet is providing an alternative to this phony "balance" and they don't like it.

Posted by DonB | January 8, 2007 12:30 PM

Diogenes said that there's no place to spit in a rich man's house except in his face.

Diogenes was part of the Old Anger.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 8, 2007 12:39 PM

The only reason such language isn't allowed over the airwaves is tight-assed American censorship masking as virtue. Blogs are bringing the street and the front porches into living rooms and offices. As another commenter said, it's about real people talking as real people about the things that matter to them. We're not tied to Robert's Rules of Order.

Benjamin Franklin, our party animal founder, would approve.

Posted by Rude Pundit | January 8, 2007 12:41 PM

If anything, there's not been enough vulgarity in response to the 'civil' bullshit of the right. Most Democratic talking heads on the cabloids are meek or tame, and wingnuts run screaming from combative opponents. It doesn't have to be an 'oh, fuck you' (though on Maher's show, there's a place for it) but ridiculing the chosen wingnut, especially a slimy whorish fuckhead like Ed Rogers, ought to be the order of the day.

Frequency is not amplitude. We are vocal, not because we are extremists, but because we are angry, and anger is no indication of ideological extremity.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 8, 2007 12:44 PM

Mark. They aren't writers. They are stenographers. That's it. They have no creativity. They have no talent. They are mostly getting by on mommy and daddies connections, and they are generally selected for such reasons rather than their "ability". You talk about them withholding information, as if that requires creativity. They are told what to include and what not to include, by training and by their editors. They arent writers just because they know how to arrange letters into words, words into sentences and sentences, and sentences into statements. Any teenager can do that. Writers don't complain about cuss words and vulgarity. They don't bitch about slang or incivility. They understand these things add character and reflect life more accurately than a sterile statement that lacks all passion and all color. They want to pretend they are better than other people, all the while indicating why they are less than most people.

Posted by soullite | January 8, 2007 1:05 PM

I don't understand why everybody rides Chait so hard. He probably the best columnist next to Krugman out there right now. Seriously, read his last 10 columns over on the LA Times. He's really good.

Posted by chris | January 8, 2007 1:17 PM

What in the fuck is up with italicizing that many words? Jesus fuck, I could care less about vulgarity but there is [i]nothing[/i] more [i]preening[/i] and [i]vulgar[/i] than that kind of italicization. Knock it the fuck off.

Posted by guy | January 8, 2007 1:39 PM

"They aren't writers. They are stenographers. That's it. They have no creativity. They have no talent. They are mostly getting by on mommy and daddies connections, and they are generally selected for such reasons rather than their "ability"."

Overgeneralize much? You're a step away from joining the Shining Path.

Posted by guy | January 8, 2007 1:40 PM

I don't understand why everybody rides Chait so hard. He probably the best columnist next to Krugman out there right now.

You have got to be kidding.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 8, 2007 2:12 PM

"It's obviously true that the blogosphere (and especially its progressive arm) involves a degree of vulgarity that wouldn't pass muster on television or in print, but the actual significance of this tends to escape me."

It has no significance in the NE corridor. However, it obscures the message here. (Go Buckeyes!)

Posted by Bill Gardner | January 8, 2007 2:59 PM

Soullite,

You're no doubt right that journalists are by and large vainglorious and dillusional, and certainly there is nothing more irksome than to hear feted, power-slavish newspeople boast of their independence and integrity.

But when you treat journalists as stenographers you absolve them of any responsibility for the editorial decisions that they necessarily make, which in turn makes serious media criticism impossible. So while I appreciate your kicking dirt in journalisms face, I think your stenographer idea does the cause a disservice.

And as for whether or not journalists are poets--of course they aren't, and thank God.

Posted by Mark | January 8, 2007 3:39 PM

But when you treat journalists as stenographers you absolve them of any responsibility for the editorial decisions that they necessarily make, which in turn makes serious media criticism impossible.

One of the criticisms of the recent press pool is that they have been all too willing to serve up White House press releases uncritically. By using "The White House says..." a little too often, they have come to resemble stenographers. No one is absolving them, just recognizing the degree to which they themselves have abdicated.

The press needs a spine, and perhaps they are finding it. But those were some terribly meek years we've just been through.

Posted by brad lehman | January 8, 2007 4:46 PM

What a bunch of bullshit. Go read a few months' worth of the New Yorker, Granta or any other half-decent rag and then keep prattling on about how there are no journos can write. That's leaving alone Greene, Hemingway, Malraux, Orwell, Garcia Lorca or whomever else you like. This clownish nonsense sounds like something you'd hear from some cloistered NRO idiot going on about the "MSM."

Posted by guy | January 8, 2007 4:59 PM

David:

...It doesn't look at a big deal in your closed universe, but try looking from the outside, instead of simply dismissing anyone else who does.....

Thank you, well said.

Sincerely,

Not-really-a-concern-troll-as-I-don't-give-a-damn-about-what-the-majority-wants-but-someone-who-selfishly-always-hoped-that-a-tiny-sector-of-the-blogosphere-would-offer-an-alternative-to-the-for-profit-talk-radio-ethos.

P.S. I always thought that Saturday Night Live et. al. made humor hay of NPR only because the contrast with the yellin elsewhere was too great. BTW, been spending more time back at ye olde NPR lately, it turns out it's quite an efficient way to get informed by having someone filter out the endless repetitive useless incivility/faux anger games. I've just about come to the end of the usefulness of hearing someone's opinion of who is an idiot. I am glad to finally be breaking the crack-like addiction to reading crap due to family crisis (silver lining.)

Posted by artappraiser | January 8, 2007 5:47 PM

The biggest problem with the MSM dismissal of bloggers as "vulgar" is that it ignores the distinction between the thoughtful and professional bloggers (such as our host) and partisan ranters. People on both sides who are much more scrupulous about fairness, civility and accuracy than typical broadcast pundits get marginalized along with the drooling hordes.

Fortunately, the MSM is becoming less relevant, and more and more people can see for themselves that folks like Matt are far more worth reading than many of the opinion makers who rule the airwaves.

Posted by Michael E Sullivan | January 8, 2007 9:27 PM

The launch of an unprovoked war causing needless thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousand of Iraqi deaths and the wreckage of American world prestige and influence is a tad “vulgar”.

History will show these monsters to be some of the worst war criminals in a century. But what do these fuck sticks care. They are more intellectually and morally corrupt and bankrupt than King Louis 16th”s court.

Posted by erict | January 8, 2007 9:31 PM

Ye Gawds, I'm a fanatic about excessive use of expletives myself and Wood's piece is so stupidly partisan and historically ignorant that I feel an attack of Tourettes coming on.

My conservative friends turned to right wing talk radio and stopped being polite to moderates and liberals back during the Reagan adminstration. That was fifteen years before the Internet was even invented. Political discussion at card games and break rooms at work started shutting down when Ronnie and his evil alter ego, Roger Ailes, decided that Democrats and liberals were too contemptable even to talk to. The concept got passed on down to millions of blue-collar dittoheads and other radio shock-jock fans, while John McLaughlin and Pat Buchanan brought their bullying, vitriolic brand of political spew to national television a decade or so before Fox News even existed.

Only after the fever pitch of right wing hatred turned into an all-out war against Bill Clinton did an angry left-wing reaction begin.

Wood reminds me of parents who complain about the noise other people's kids are making at restaurants while their own dear child is screaming his lungs out.

Posted by Midland | January 8, 2007 10:53 PM

Matt -- go fuck yourself! A Spurs fan from California!

Posted by camus57 | January 9, 2007 12:39 AM