Civility

Eric Alterman has a great column up about "The Politics of Pundit Prestige." The lede is worth the price of admission:

Back in the pre-Internet days of yore, political punditry was the best job in journalism and one of the best anywhere. You could spout off on anything you wanted, and almost nobody would call you on it, much less find a place to publish and prove you wrong. And once you had established yourself as "credible," it required little work, save coming up with a few semi-memorable phrases. (George Will's chef-d'oeuvre was opining that the Reagan Administration "loved commerce more than it loathed Communism.") With the advent of television talk shows, riches arrived in the form of corporate speaking gigs that paid tens of thousands of dollars an hour just to say the same damn thing you said on television. When Fred Barnes famously pronounced on The McLaughlin Group, "I can speak to almost anything with a lot of authority," he was right, at least to the degree that he was really saying, "I can speak to almost anything without anyone pointing out how full of shit I usually am."

This, I think, is what a lot of the obsession with blogosphere "incivility" is all about. A lot of people in the media do things that bloggers generally can't do. File dispatches from dangerous foreign lands. Investigate serious wrongdoing inside the government. That kind of thing. But lots of people in the media do things that are essentially the same as what bloggers do. Offer commentary on things they read about in the newspaper. Summarize what they think the most salient elements of a high-profile speech were. Point out some noteworthy portions of a press conference. Journalists don't like the competition, don't like the criticism, don't like the threat to their economic model, etc., etc., etc. So there's a tendency to seize on semi-arbitrary things that distinguish blog posts from op-ed columns. We don't write "fuck" or call people "wankers," we don't say mean things about other journalists, we're civil, and so forth.

4/10/07 3:01PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

I don't have anything substantive to add, but that Alterman column does, in fact, rock.

Posted by: Growler on April 10, 2007 03:14 PM

Yes, exactly.

Similarly, the people who made and sold IBM's multimillion-dollar mainframes didn't take kindly to the rise of Apple or the PC, nor the UAW to East Asian auto imports.

Posted by: RKU on April 10, 2007 03:18 PM

Yes, not only are they not used to accountability, they are not used to the competition.

In the punditry field one needed the brand prestige of some large media corporation in order to get in the field, this narrowed both the competition in the market place of ideas and the market place of cushy gigs. Their coveted spots have already been devalued by the added competition from blogs, and likely to be further in the future.

They can't admit that's what bother them, possibly even to themselves, so the civility angle is what they hang their hats on.

Posted by: AJ on April 10, 2007 03:24 PM

It is amazing how full of shit the average American pundit is and has always been.

Posted by: Reality Man on April 10, 2007 03:26 PM

Yeah. I never bought the argument that blogging was a direct threat to and would replace journalism. But it was always clear to me that blogging would be a threat to and a replacement for opinion writers and analysts and pundits. The dirty little secret about punditry (which Alterman detailed in his first book, Sound and Fury) is that these people don't have any special knowledge or analytical skill, and most of their opinions are recycled conventional wisdom and pop-nonsense and schoolyard insider drama. All they have is their oversized reputations and their prime placement on op-ed pages and political talk shows. Now, with the internet, interested readers can summon up a vastly larger range of voices to listen to (and even interact with), and so who needs Cokie Roberts or Tom Oliphaunt or Mike Barnicle? They're just one voice among many, and not very interesting or well-informed or unique voices at that. Furthermore, most people are willing to tell you what they think for free. What's their competitive advantage?

I distinctly remember reading, in early 2000, reading a column in the San Francisco Chronicle by Debra J. Saunders about Al Gore - it was the usual artless, inaccurate right-wing nonsense about his woodeness, inventing the internet, Love Canal, Love Story, Bill Clinton, and how it all shows that he can't be trusted - and thinking to myself "Why is this being printed in a newspaper and presented like it's something worth reading and chewing over? I've read and heard the exact same collection of anti-Gore talking points a half-dozen times already. I'm only a casual follower of politics, and I've already found five gross, provable errors of fact in this column. How can this person earn a living doing this?" I think that was the last time I ever read anything off an op-ed page. Why bother?

They've been exposed. It's not that we're better than them, it's that they're no better than us, and thus undeserving of their salaries and fame and perqs. They hate bloggers and the internet because we're a direct threat to the gravy train that they ride.

Posted by: FMguru on April 10, 2007 03:34 PM

I think another factor is that it's only in the last couple of decades (with the rise of the Cable shows and lavish speaking-fees) that any significant number of these pundits got rich or famous.

Now, at the peak of their wealth and glory, they suddenly see they're about the go the way of the dinosaurs.

Posted by: RKU on April 10, 2007 03:38 PM

I think some in the MSM resent bloggers because bloggers get to tell the truth. Most journalists have some sort of corporation lording over them, requiring every word and phrase be considered in the context of what damage it'll do or help it'll render to the relationship with their "audience". Audience meaning advertisers, investors and politicians chiefly. Readers and listeners/viewers count but they can be trained to soak up any old bullshit and still maintain ratings or readership. It has to rankle what are certainly great numbers of reporters they can't just dig up the truth and trumpet it unfiltered. Bloggers can do that, calling a situation for what it is. I think that is the cause of some of the resentment between these two camps.

Posted by: steve duncan on April 10, 2007 03:38 PM

I read a dozen blogs daily, while I am basically never exposed to profesional pundits (except Krugman and Herbert in the NYT -- I skip the rest of the columnists.) Don't watch TV chat shows or lsiten to NPR. If I'm at all typical of mid-30s college grads, the Kleins are right to be worried.

Posted by: lemuel pitkin on April 10, 2007 03:46 PM

There are probably ten bloggers I'd go to before I look at any newspaper columnist except Krugman.

The other newspaper function that bloggers have taken over is editing. Editors can't hide stories on page 16 any more, or rewrite stories with the lede in paragraph 4. Stories stay alive even if the major media don't cover them at all.

Posted by: John Emerson on April 10, 2007 03:48 PM

I don't think punditry has been threatened at all, I just think the increased market of voices has allowed people to choose who their pundits are rather than have them be chosen for them.

Posted by: DRR on April 10, 2007 04:03 PM

It'll be interesting if it develops in such a way that bloggers are treated more as media personalities in their own right. We're already beginning to see some hints of this trend. After we reach a critical mass of Pulitzer prize-winning bloggers (bound to happen), it seems like a fairly small leap to imagine one of them with a regular appearance on This Week with George Stephanopolous, say, 10 years from now. And what's wrong with that? Would it be ultimately corruptive? Would it degrade the medium? Like bringing graffiti into art galleries?

Posted by: sangfroid826 on April 10, 2007 04:07 PM

Actually, I think the difficulty with individual bloggers ever capturing more than a tiny fraction of the current wealth/fame/influence of the MSM pundits is that the barriers-to-entry are basically zero.

Also, since the Internet is a near-friction-free medium, people can easily discover new bloggers who have interesting things to say and gradually pay less attention to older bloggers who no longer do.

Currently, pundits can reach a prominent "perch" and then maintain their careers without saying anything that's new or interesting. Bloggers who try that will rock like a rock.

The cost/competition structure is orders-of-magnitude different. Which is also why the most newspaper stocks are dropping like lead.

Posted by: RKU on April 10, 2007 04:21 PM

Anybody who doesn't think civility is extremely important is an assh*le.

Posted by: Al on April 10, 2007 04:26 PM

This, I think, is what a lot of the obsession with blogosphere "incivility" is all about.

That's certainly part of it. But another thing that characterizes high-prestige media pundits is that they all tend to hang around with each other, and with the figures they are writing about, and this produces slothful bonds of class comraderie and mutual understanding that are threatened by the invigorating and egalitarian moral acid of the blogosphere.

In accordance with the usual code of the Washington clique, the fact that some guy has, for example, voted in favor of torture and indefinite incarceration without trial, or has through ignorance, cupidity and stubborn pride sent thousands of young people to an early death is absolutely no reason to, say, make harsh jokes at his expense, or fail to treat him with the respect due to his office, or resort to coarse and vulgar denunciations of him. Heavens, what dire end might we come to if we start down this road of judging people by the consequences of their actions!

While the low criminality and mundane visciousness of the base orders of society merits nothing but scorn and disgust according to the ruling class and their media lackeys, the appropriate attitude to take toward the high criminality and moral depravity of politicians and their courtiers is sympathetic appreciation for the fineness of their intentions, and fawning admiration for the skillfulness of their machinations.

That's called "civility" - Washington style.

Posted by: Dan Kervick on April 10, 2007 05:04 PM

America's most powerful and influential television journalist, NBC's Tim Russert, has taken a real blogosphere beating of late for his Libby trial admission that while, yes, he does consider himself to be a journalist, he does not think it proper to ask any news-related questions of top Bush Administration officials when they happen to phone him because, well, it's bad manners.

Egads.

Posted by: Monty on April 10, 2007 05:42 PM

It's a great column; the top tier of pundits really don't have anything more to add than any average blogger (except for maybe some name-dropping...which familiarity with the people they write about is arguably a problem in its own right). And FMGuru, I have a whole category on my blog for Debra Saunders.

That said, civility is a genuine virtue, something worth valuing in its own right. The fact that the Joe Kleins and the Josh 'kill them all, let god sort 'em out, but for god's sake be civil about it' Trevinos of the world misuse the word for their own ends does not make it any less valuable.

Posted by: Tom Hilton on April 10, 2007 05:47 PM

Wow. Everything about this post is great - Alterman's column, Yglesia's follow-up, and the comments. Kudos all around!

Posted by: Del Capslock on April 10, 2007 05:59 PM

Like a lot of people who actually work for a living, I'm rarely home in time to see the national TV news broadcasts or the commet shows following them, and have better things to do on Sunday morning than watch the Sabbath Gasbags. For the last few days, howwever, I was visiting my ailing father, who is addicted to this crap, especially the Fox/MSNBC versions. While trying to get an account of his prognosis, the TV was blaring on Iran's release of the British sailors. For the better part of the next few hours, I heard talking heads tote up who "won" and who "lost." I didn't hear whether the soldiers had actually sailed into Iranian waters or were dangerously close, I didn't hear how they had been treated, I didn't hear who decided to take them and why, or who in the Iranian government decided to let them go, over whose opposition, or what, if anything, Great Britain did or said that might have affected the decision. I heard a bunch of folks who knew no more about any of that than I did blathering about winners and losers. The blatherers I recognized were saying things I could have written for them. I want my MSM to find out what's so and tell me. Then I can figure out for myself who won or lost. If they'd report, I could decide. But reporting is real work.

Posted by: CJColucci on April 10, 2007 06:57 PM

I liked Alterman's column, but I think there were two points he could have touched on: the implications of consistent branding of the blogosphere "uncivil" by the MSM and another reason why the MSM really hates the blogosphere, because it connects political commentators directly with readers. Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marshall often post e-mails from readers, and MY engages his readers in the comment section. It's a sort of a flattening of the conversation that could potentially tear people away from the MSM's agenda (Anna Nicole's baby, etc.). Then again, the average American probably doesn't have the time to read up on blogs anyway. Either way, I do think the MSM perceives a threat: that the blogosphere is wrestling away control of the conversation.

Posted by: Matthew Struhar on April 10, 2007 07:03 PM

I loved the column too. The sheer insanity of the "blogger incivility" charge betrays that it's not honest. Let's see: Ann Coulter calls happily-married John Edwards a "faggot", wishes the 9/11 terrorists had flown into the NY Times building, and asks for someone to poison a Supreme Court Justice; Rush Limbaugh makes fun of a Parkinsons' patient and accuses him of not taking his meds to make a political point (in addition to being offensive, Limbaugh betrayed his utter lack of understanding of the disease with that one); Michelle Malkin thinks it's great that people were interned based only on their ethnicity; Don Imus makes references to "nappy-headed hos;" Bill O'Reilly screams at a guest to "shut up" and turns off his microphone. These people, however, are all wealthy and somehow "respectable," but those nasty left-wing bloggers use the f-word once in a while, so they're the ones who are "incivil." Give me a @#$%* break.

Posted by: beckya57 on April 10, 2007 07:05 PM

It is impossible to be civil when discussing the MSM pundits because many of them are disgusting specimens of humanity. To call them deceitful, dishonest whores is an insult to all of those women in the street side service industry.

Specific Examples available on request.

Posted by: Don Williams on April 10, 2007 07:44 PM

Most punditry is noticeably dumber than, say, a work-related discussion you might have with the smart guy down the hall in your office who knows his stuff. Anyone who works in a halfway sophisticated environment would never put up with the crap that pundits dish out as a serious input to problem-solving. The problem is that the profession in no way selects for intelligence, knowledge, or depth. It's just idle kibitzing. Anyone who goes on the web with any subject matter expertise is far superior to your typical pundit.

With that said, the profession will not disappear because round-table dsicussion between idle kibitzers and gossip mavens is an inexpensive and popular TV format.

Posted by: MQ on April 10, 2007 11:06 PM

He must really hate being called Jokeline.

Posted by: merlallen on April 11, 2007 03:30 AM

What beckya57 said. The way the punditocracy has been rallying around Imus completely gives the lie to their supposed problems with lefty bloggers over incivility and bad language.

It's a tribal thing. Imus has made himself part of the tribe, and Markos Moulitsas hasn't. End of story.

Posted by: RT on April 11, 2007 07:24 AM

An important thing to remember about "civility" is that it is a tool used by people at the center of power to restrict what the people on the margins of power say to them. It has an effect like that of Orwell's Newspeak: demanding civility in discourse restricts the content of that discourse. By its nature, civility makes the concerns of the powerful seem important and those of the powerless unimportant.

And an accusation of incivility gives the powerful carte blanche to ignore the content of the powerless: you must use take your hat off, look down, and shuffle your feet when you address me, or else I will dismiss your complaint out of hand.

Posted by: Alan Bostick on April 11, 2007 03:44 PM

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

Posted by: mirc on December 26, 2007 02:18 PM

www.sexshopum.com
www.harbiarkadas.com
www.harbiarkadas.net
www.harbiarkadas.org
www.itirafet.org
www.ebedava.net
www.elektronikmarket.net
www.ameribress.com
www.clitoriacream.net
www.superspenisbuyutucu.com
www.megabress.com
www.rednightperformans.com
www.performansartirici.com
www.penisplus.tv
www.penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
www.penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
www.cinselmerkez.com
www.aseks.net
www.erotikcamasirlar.com
www.vajinatr.com
www.bakirevajina.com
www.cinselkozmetik.com
www.kozmetikmedikel.com
www.eturknet.com
www.tecavuz.net
www.yutuvideo.com
www.ponotubesex.com
www.laraperuk.com
www.sackanagimerkezi.com
www.peruksa.com
www.perukmarket.com
www.aseks.com
www.aloveshop.com
www.erotikgiyim.com
www.www.geciktiricispreyler.com
www.geciktiricihap.com
www.geciktiriciler.com
www.azdirici.com
www.bayanuyarici.com
www.fntazialemi.com
www.fantaziservisi.om
www.cinselmazemeler.com
www.cinselfantaziurunleri.com
www.erotikdakikalar.com
www.erotikmarketiniz.com
www.seksmarketiniz.com
www.sekshatlari.com
www.erotikdergiler.com
www.erotikderginiz.com
www.penisbuyutucuviprx.com
www.penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
www.penisbuyutuculer.com
www.vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
www.sismebebekler.com
www.sismebebekshop.com
www.yemekeviniz.com
www.sanalmarketiniz.com
www.elektronikmarket.net
www.ebedava.net
www.kontortr.com
www.elaydin23.com
www.turkcellkontorcu.com
www.aveakontoral.com
www.vodafonekontoral.com
www.toptankontorcu.com
www.cinselkozmetik.com
www.bayanpartnerler.com
www.erkekpartnerler.com
www.kizarkadaslar.com
www.yonjaarkadas.com
www.siberalem-siberalem.com
www.sexpartnerler.com
www.sekspartnerler.com
www.erotikpartnerler.com
www.gencyuz.com
www.erkekarkadaslar.com
www.bayanarkadaslar.com
www.yemekeviniz.com
www.sanalmarketiniz.com
www.baskahaber.com
www.medikalkozmetik.net
www.kozmetikmedikal.com
www.zayiflamavediyet.net
www.zayiflamahapii.com
www.zayiflamabandii.com
www.kilovertr.com
www.zayiflamatr.net
www.diyettr.com
www.toksinbandi.net
www.botoxtr.com
www.botokstr.com
www.selulittedavii.com
www.selulitgiderici.net
www.selulitkremii.com
www.catlaktedavisii.com
www.catlakgiderici.net
www.catlakkremii.com
www.aseks.com
www.erotikgiyim.com
www.aloveshop.com
www.sismebebekshop.com