As much as I hate to question the judgment of Seattle’s most objective journalist, I couldn’t help but be taken aback by David Postman’s recent post: “Reichert gets Dems help on wilderness bill.”
Postman asserts that by garnering the co-sponsorhip of Jay Inslee and Norm Dicks on his wilderness bill, Dave Reichert has made any attempt to question his green credentials a “tough argument.” Okay. I’ve disagreed with Postman before. No biggie.
But how does Postman, a self-proclaimed champion of fairness and balance, present the tough arguments of those of us who dare to challenge his thesis? With a big, fat, editorial caveat:
But the campaign of Reichert’s Democratic opponent, Darcy Burner, and her amen bloggers have called the bill a cynical attempt at green-washing.
“Amen bloggers” …? Really?
Postman’s got it half right, but what really makes it so tough for us to argue against the Reichert mythology is when media gatekeepers like Postman intentionally undermine our credibility before presenting our rebuttal.
The implication is clear. Postman… he’s a serious blogger. Joel Connelly, whose blog post he cites in support of his thesis… he’s a serious blogger. But amen bloggers like me and Dan Kirkdorffer and our colleagues, well… we’re just goddamn partisans whose work you can pretty much dismiss without consideration… no matter how well reasoned or how well supported by the facts.
Obviously, I find Postman’s brushoff a tad irritating, but not having benefited from a proper J-school education myself, perhaps I don’t fully understand the finer nuances of his profession? So I’m hoping Postman can explain to me, in the abstract, from his journalistic perspective, what exactly the difference is between an opinion expressed by a columnist like Joel (or an editorial writer like Kate Riley) and that of a lowly blogger like me?
I mean, an opinion is an opinion, right? Is a newspaper columnist inherently more credible because he’s paid to write his opinions, while I just spew mine for free? If I were paid $90,000 a year to write my opinions, would I suddenly be harder to dismiss? Or do I have to be paid by the right people, say some corporate media conglomerate, or perhaps a fifth-generation newspaper family that claims gravitas as a birthright, like some Lamarckian adaptation?
Surely it can’t be the fact that we express opinions that makes us amen bloggers so unreliable, as Postman himself cited Joel’s opinion as definitive support of his thesis. Neither can it be the mere medium that is in question, print vs. online, as in this particular instance all three of us are peddling our work via blogs. So is Postman implying that it is our proud partisanship that costs us our credibility, while it is his and Joel’s vaunted impartiality that secures their own?
Such an implication would leave me even more confused, because doesn’t the mere act of having an opinion imply some sort of bias or partisan leaning? Isn’t the explicit role of the columnist to express his opinions, freely informed by personal bias as well as the facts? Indeed, Joel describes himself as an environmentalist; doesn’t that make him a partisan too? And while I understand that reporters like Postman jealously guard their appearance of impartiality, wasn’t his elitist dismissal of other bloggers as “amen” an act of editorializing that reveals a personal bias of his own?
And finally, you can’t get much more partisan than the candidates themselves, and yet reporters routinely regurgitate their pronouncements and public statements without prepending a cynical asterisk.
So if it’s not our opinions, it’s not our medium, and it’s not our partisanship that automatically undermines our credibility, I can only assume that Postman’s obvious disdain for us amen bloggers comes from the quality of our work itself. In which case I’d argue that he owes it to us (not to mention his readers) to critique and refute our work before dismissively brushing it off as unworthy of serious consideration, because when Postman implies that Joel is credible but we automatically are not, or that Reichert’s motives should be taken at face value while ours most definitely shouldn’t, well I can’t help but take that as a personal slight especially in the absence of any serious effort on his part to back up his assertions… you know, apart from the occasional characterization of me as a drunkard, a hypocrite or a knee-jerk lackey.
The other bloggers are fully capable of defending themselves, but my question for Postman is, what is it that I have written to earn such disrespect? When I accused Reichert of bragging about bringing home earmarks in one piece of franked mail, while bragging about opposing them in another… was I wrong? When I attacked Reichert for promising to cut Medicare when speaking before fellow Republicans, but promising to defend it when franking his constituents… did I mislead my readers, deliberately or otherwise? I’m asking, because if I’m so wrong so much of the time you’d think a simple refutation would come as easily as a dismissive wave of the hand.
Have I proven to be dishonest or dishonorable? Have I been a poor political analyst? Have you found the quality of my prose to be incoherent, unintelligent, uninformed or otherwise wanting when compared to the standard we’ve come to expect from our city’s two dailies? Because if so, the least you could do is show me the courtesy of critiquing my writing and refuting my arguments before blithely dismissing me as just an “amen blogger.”
Come on David, cite a few examples. Show what liars we are. Prove to the world why we cannot be trusted. I betcha you can’t, because while opinions and interpretations can be partisan, facts cannot, and as Dan has proven, my god do we bloggers labor over getting our facts straight.
Which is why, I guess, so many of us found your characterization of us as “amen bloggers” so frustrating, if not downright offensive. Like the lazy trolls who, incapable of actually refuting my arguments, point to my occasional use of foul language as reason alone to dismiss me, you have seized upon our outspoken partisanship as an opportunity to be equally curt and scornful. But if we are relevant enough to be publicly dissed, aren’t we relevant enough to be told the reasons why? Is our work really that lacking, or is there some other, more personal reason that causes you to show us so little respect?
Which brings us back to Joel Connelly, who on this issue I have no compunction in saying is flat-out wrong. Joel pines for a romanticized past in which the Republican Party truly embraced environmentalism, and in which the mantle of bipartisanship was more than just a last ditch rhetorical refuge for the electorally impaired. Reichert’s green credentials don’t pass the laugh test, and I’ve told Joel this to his face in no uncertain words. He thinks my unforgiving partisanship is dangerous, mean spirited and counterproductive. I think his desperate longing for bipartisanship is naive. And yet Joel frequents Drinking Liberally, engages us in debate and joins us on our podcasts because despite our differences we like and respect each other.
Likewise, I have repeatedly professed my respect for Postman and his work… a respect that clearly is not reciprocated. No, he was so concerned with dissing us bloggers that I wonder if he even bothered reading his own post?
Why would someone with such sterling environmental credentials like Inslee, or a congressman who has no worry about re-election, like Dicks, agree to co-sponsor something if they thought it was designed only to help Reichert’s re-election prospects?
Duh… um… because they genuinely support expanding the wilderness area, regardless of Reichert’s motives? You gotta admit, it’s a possibility. (Do they teach that in J-school… objectively establishing one’s thesis by asking rhetorical questions?)
Reichert had been frustrated that he wasn’t getting any co-sponsors from the delegation.
You don’t just “get” co-sponsors, you do the hard work of actively seeking them out. Which I guess explains why seven months later, Inslee was the first co-sponsor to sign on. Hell, Reichert hasn’t even bothered to get the support of a single Republican colleague. (Or is evaluating Reichert’s competence as a legislator off-limits during an election year?)
See how much I respect you David? Enough to actually bother to critique your work, instead of just insulting it. Think of it as tough love.
Yeah, I know… it’s an awfully long post in response to a single word, but I’m just plain tired of tiptoeing around the fragile egos of Postman and a handful of his peers who insist on taking every critique of them or their institutions as a personal insult. Do they have any idea how sensitive they come off? Do they know how many times I’ve been embargoed on a story with the specific instruction not to post until Postman or some other journalist publishes first, out of concern that if I break the story on HA, the “real” journalists will willfully ignore it?
That’s what we’ve come to, a point where media pettiness has led some in the progressive community to seriously question whether they’ll face retaliation from reporters and editors for openly allying with bloggers like me. And that, by the way David, is why I tend to relentlessly focus on stories like Reichert’s abusive and dishonest franking practices… because nobody else will! You don’t think the Burner campaign and the state party don’t shop around their stories before eventually sending them my way? We’re not an amen chorus, we’re the media outlet of last resort for progressive campaigns and causes that can’t get the time of day from a press corps obsessed with sex scandals and horse races.
Unlike some bloggers on the right who ridiculously claim to be “small ‘l’ libertarians” while maintaining an active role in their local Republican Party, I have always worn my bias on my sleeve, and I have always urged my audience to read me in that context and make up their minds for themselves. My comment threads have always remained open, and for the most part unmoderated, subjecting my work to the most brutal form of public vetting you will find anywhere on the web.
Yes, I aggressively support Darcy Burner because she is damn smart and a damn hard worker, and because I believe the phrase “Congressman Dave Reichert” is an insult to anybody with an IQ above 110. Yes, I am proudly partisan, but my work has always been based on facts, and I challenge anybody—even Postman—to prove that my facts don’t stand on their own.
And with that I say… amen.
“Fragile ego of Postman?” Hell, Goldy, you’re the one whose ego looks fragile, when you post shit like this.
Ignore Postman. Everybody else does. You’re already eating his lunch. Just keep doing what you’re doing and quit responding to shit like that.
Goldy, this guy’s a wank. He gets his spot on the page because of the quantity of his connections, not the quality of his composition. You have that over him and he resents it.
You’ll never get cred from those who feel threatened by you. You get cred by the words you speak, the prose you write and the battles you fight.
You got yours, he’s still can’t get his.
Postum will always take the low road when referring to bloggers (he distinguishes himself above the rabble, of course)
Respect is earned, not pasted on your bumper or your byline.
Testify brother!
Yeah, what Ivan and David say. The print guys went to school, paid dues to a club that’s rapidily bleeding income because of the this internet thing, and the blogggers come along and show them up. You’re drinking his milkshake, and his family’s milkshake too. Take it as the backhanded compliment it is. Izzy Stone would be proud of you.
Ohhhh….”amen bloggers”.
That’s very different.
I thought Postman just got a little sloppy when he was writing “mean bloggers”…because we all hurt his delicate feelings every now and then.
If the Amen bloggers weren’t getting noticed and under peoples skin they wouldn’t be getting a mention.
Keep up the good work.
Here’s what I wrote on Postman’s blog about this, that goes to many of the same points Goldy made above:
There’s no way anyone who’s voted with the Republicans umpteen percent of the time over the last four years can get a clean green bill of health. This wilderness bill doesn’t change that.
I kinda doubt this bill would exist without bloggers and Ms. Burner nipping at Hair Sprays heals.
Maybe Postman’s miffed that Goldy impersonated him?
I can’t say it enough: not a dime for that fish wrapper, not a nickel for that cat box liner, not one freaking millicent for the Blethen flippin’ Times.
I left a couple of posts over at Postmanville and hope some of you do the same.
David Postman is right, and offers needed advice that Horses Ass blogger apparently refuses to take.
When writing about Darcy Burner, Goldy ceases to be a provocative commentator and becomes an adoring, predictable public bore. The “amen corner” should learn to appreciate St. Thomas the Doubter.
Let’s dissect Postman. First of all – he doesn’t have the guts to participate here. Second, he kicks anyone who doesn’t agree with him off his blog. Third, he’s a so-called journalist who is supposed to keep his political views out of his columns but any fair reading of his shit shows a right – leaning approach. Lastly, he’s afraid of losing his gig. Newspapers won’t be around in 10 years. So attacking his competition (bloggers) is an obvious move when you’re a no-talent asshole trying to protect your miserable little scrap of turff. Postman is a joke.
Maybe Postman’s aggravated because he hasn’t been invited to cover the Democratic Convention. I wonder whose readership is bigger: Postman’s or Goldy’s.
The only guy I read in the Seattle papers is ‘Lance Dickie’ because his name is so absurdly funny. How did this guy survive childhood?
Seems to me, anyone who wasn’t an “amen blogger” wouldn’t be offended by the term. Why isn’t Goldy confidently thinking and saying, “Hey, I KNOW he’s not talking about me, because there is no way I am an amen blogger.” But Goldy isn’t saying that, is he? He’s defensive. Why? I can only think of one reason he’s be defensive about this.
Goldy,
Here’s all we have to know about you and the so called “news”papers in town.
Since the inception of your blog the readership on HA has gone up. During the same time period readership at the local papers has gone down.
Coincidence? I say no. It’s directly related to the superior reporting of facts on HA and the lack of investigative journalism at the local rags.
That’s why they are dismissing you, Goldy. Your clear, honest journalist writing is taking away their livelihood.
Or, maybe I’m wrong and Postman can easily prove their subscription rates have gone up over the same time period.
Am I wrong? If so, Postman will refute it with facts. We’ll see.
“I Believe” Bloggers!!
ByeByeGOP @10 – Postman isn’t a joke or an asshole. Our disagreement doesn’t need to degenerate into that kind of thing IMO.
However, I’d would like to have him or any other reporter present a reasoned argument regarding Reichert’s voting record as to why they don’t report on the inconsistencies in it.
If they’re making the decision for readers that readers aren’t interested, aren’t they willfully withholding reporting on information based on an opinion? Have they actually gone out and done surveys asking people if they would care if it seemed that their congressman opposed the very bills he voted for, and that perhaps his “support” for some of them is a hoax, or political ploy?
Get with it Goldy – the notion of “Amen blogger” comes from the Johnny-one-note always opposed or always in favor, never any nuance or subtley that you display.
The Darcy can do no wrong, she’s never taken a poor position on an issue, she’s perfect in every respect, she is the best of the best of the best.
Dave Reichert is Satan incarnate – he can do no right, all things Reichert are corrupt and evil and Rovish and designed to extend the Iraq war into the 47th Century, everything he’s ever done in his life is a lie, the Green River Killer would have been caught in the first 15-minutes save for his ineptitude, and so on and so forth.
Shall I run a comparison between Dino Rossi and Christine “Do Nothing but bloat the budget by 1/3” Gregoire?
Your “amen” status comes from blind obsequiousness to all things left/liberal and utter disregard, contempt, derision, and scorn of all things centrist/moderate/right/conservative.
What Puddy calls the 16% status of left-handed drum-bangers is epitomized by HA and your blogging fellow travellers.
You only see out of your left eye. Your right eye must have offended you so much you plucked it out.
And ditto the vast, overwhelmingly vast, majority of the HA Happy Hooligans, who walk and talk in circles around a leftist May Pole. Any who disagree are dumped upon with the kind of language that, if used around your daughter, would bring your utter wrath.
Yet you give it a complete pass with no comment. There’s one thing to letting people post whatever they wish, but there’s something else entirely about some of the total gutter trash that’s put up here that receives you implicit endorsement.
I’ve got Democrat friends, including ones elected to office, and they tell me that this kind of stuff causes them more trouble than it’s worth.
Yours isn’t the POV right 100% of the time…nor is it wrong 100% of the time. When you are right, that’s one thing, but when you are proven wrong, as you were after last fall’s election, instead of showing some grace and class, your tore into all who wouldn’t vote your way.
Washington/King County/Seattle ain’t all about you.
Reasonable people can think light rail a stupid idea without being subject to a rant. Reasonable people can consider the candidacy of Richard Pope a public disgrace (the Democrat Party did) without being subject to a rant. Reasonable people can oppose The Darcy without being subject to a rant.
Reasonable people can support buses and more roads. They can hold their noses and vote for Jane Hague. They can support Dave Reichert.
Your hard, Draconian divides are what cause a guy like Postamn, who’s more of a left-centrist like a lot of the Dems I know, to pigeon hole and marginalize you as an “amen blogger.”
There are two sides to every street and story…
The Piper
Piper,
We’ll have a coffee some time on the east side. I’m jammed through most of June, but maybe if your schedule will permit late June or early July will do.
Have a good weekend,
GBS
Oh, yeah, I’ll buy since you dont’ have an expense account. Although, you should find another tax accountant. For someone who works from home “entertainment” expenses are easily had.
@17…GBS…
Appreciate it – let’s go Dutch (in honor of Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus).
And after June is over works better for me – my #2 son, the contractor, is madly working to get the house in shape for sale, and I’m taking orders from him right now, which means no executive lunches or lengthy coffee breaks.
When you work for one of your kids, you find that payback is a bitch!
I’m also doing some interesting new work that is simply chewing my time right now.
We’ll get there – never fear.
And I am looking forward to it.
The Piper
15 is one for the shredder Goldy.
Until he get the name of the party correct, he should take his tired Atwater/Rove act elsewhere.
Piper:
Yeah, paybacks are a bitch. Why do you think I keep reminding my kids I wiped their asses for a couple of years each.
The way I figure it, they owe me 4 years of ass wiping when I’m too old to wipe myself.
Now that’s a bitch!!
Piper – I’ll grant some of what you wrote is true, however, I’ll also submit that unlike so many of the Republican candidates you and others have out there (Reichert, Reed, McCain, to name a few), we actually like our candidates (Burner, Gregoire, Cantwell, etc…), and have good things we want to say about them.
I can’t remember the last time I read an argument in support of Dave Reichert over at Sound Politics, not because everyone there are expressing restraint in their support, but because they’re holding their noses.
For my part, since I was mentioned by name by Postman, I feel that his comment was directed at me as much as anyone else, and I’ve certainly spent more time writing about Reichert than I have about Burner, but it is convenient for Postman to just lump us all together. Do I feel a need to write about Reichert’s pluses? No. That’s something he and his supporters can do, although I’ve not seen any supporters doing so. That shouldn’t mean what I do write has no merit, and I don’t care who takes credit for any of it, I just want people to know about it so they can decide for themselves what to do with the information.
Dude, wow.
I mean, I think you’re right, and I think Postman’s wrong, and I think the so-called “legit” journalists are crazy scared of the bloggers who are really taking over their turf. I mean, you dance rings around Postman, and (pardon) someone like Dave Neiwert puts almost anyone to shame.
But this long, long post seems a but defensive. I don’t blame you, but I also didn’t bother reading it.
Anyway, Piper’s an idiot who loves to point the finger anywhere but at the corrupt warmongers he supports, and you’re toally OK by me. But dude, wow.
Oh, and fuck Dave Reichert. He’s losing.
And don’t we all love the Piper telling us about all his supposed Democratic “friends” who complletely agree with him and his warmonger buddies. Yeah, they’re all real Democrats. uh-huh.
And they all support John McCain, too. Funny.
Oh, and Piper? It’s the DemocratIC Party. Jerk.
Goldy said:
“As much as I hate to question the judgment of Seattle’s most objective journalist,…”
You started out with an incorrect premise, Goldy: there aren’t any objective journalists in Seattle. They are all biased, usually towards the left.
GBS if Pooper shows up in his skirt, I’d be sure to run for the hills. You never know what he has in mind. After all, he is a republican and they love to spend time in the men’s room!
Goldy from a few days ago…
Well, given this response, I’d say Postman hit a sore point.
Where is your rant against your former KIRO colleague Dave Ross who said (in response to the McClellan story a couple of weeks back) that investigative journalism was being replaced by bloggers whose only qualifications are cleverest phrasing and swearing?
Blogs are online talk shows. They are opinion. They are (and HA definitely is) valuable, entertaining, great, etc. for what it is, but it shouldn’t be given the same weight as good, fair, investigative journalism.
@22
And I introduce you to the Amen Commenter.
@27 says:
“(blogging) shouldn’t be given the same weight as good, fair, investigative journalism.”
I say:
Maybe, maybe not. What happens when the blogs do better investigative journalism than the corporate media? Do they get the credit, then, or don’t they? Goldy has a whole lot of scoops to his credit. Deny that if you can.
And if you’re thinking “does this guy even know the difference,” the answer is yes.
Hey if it isn’t my favorite Reductio ad absurdum amen blog, Horses Ass. With it’s shitsteam pile of apologistic ‘journalism’.
This whole site is nothing but a big whine fest.
ivan @ 29: What happens when the blogs do better investigative journalism than the corporate media?
That’s the current problem, as I said. We need investigative journalists that will go after the BS *on both sides*. You know that if there is any dirt on Darcy Burner, you’ll never read it first here, or, conversely, read dirt on Reichert over at SP.
The problem then becomes folks read what they agree with, and automatically discount anything in conflict with their POV because the only ones “covering” it is the other side.
In a perfect world, the MSM would be doing better getting the hard news, and blogging would be where folks could read and share opinions and comment on that hard news.
Counting on the MSM for news is like counting on the NAZIS for Jewish relocation…….
Kinda reminds me of Michael Moore slicing Sanjay Gupta to pieces live for having a huge press mouthpiece, and never once mentioning what Moore showed in Sicko.
The sad fact about sheriff hair spray is he has nothing regarding a record to stand on. He is practically the least effective congressperson, according to rankings, and neither Joel or Postdrip would dare print it in their rags.
While blindly supporting Bush, and the Republiconvicts destruction of our country is a thousand ways, Reichert is only good for one thing. Repeating Rovian talking points. That’s about it.
The media does have a huge problem with the concept of “objectivity.” The mainstream media, with its remarkably conservative bias, perceives “objectivity” as meaning that both sides to any story must be presented, and both sides must be presented as if they are equally viable. In reality, because there is a reality, sometimes one side of a story does not deserve equal footing–shall we talk creationism-taught-in-schools anyone? Being a partisan does not mean one is necessarily wrong. There is no question Goldy is right about Dave Reichert. Does anyone believe he gives a rat’s ass about the Wild Sky Wilderness Area aside from its political ramifications for his future? Piper, do you support that designation? I doubt it. Reichert did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
“But amen bloggers like me … well… we’re just goddamn partisans whose work you can pretty much dismiss without consideration… no matter how well reasoned or how well supported by the facts.”
Well, for the most part, yes, because you’re a liar.
I don’t say that to be mean. But you intentionally hide, distort, and even misrepresent facts to suit your political agenda.
That’s not to say you never have reasoned arguments, you often do. But most people don’t have time to or desire to bother trying to figure out when you’re being reasonable and when you’re lying. So you end up being dismissed instead.
Perhaps they should take the time, but they don’t, and they won’t.
re 15: Why, Piper, do you always subject others to your WingNut-blinkered (not so brief) rants — but, when your comments are subjected to critical scrutiny — your outrage is palpable.
Others on this blog may be impressed with your purple, James Fenimore Cooperish blithering — but I’m not.
You are the Johnny One-Note here. The projection and transferance you display, not to mention the blockheadedness of your neo-Stalinist ideas, would be mildly amusing if not for the fact that you defend and promote the blackest and most foul evil imaginable in this world.
Your sons are not protecting mine or anyone else’s freedom. If you were a real father with more concern for your sons’ safety than proving that your stupid opinions are correct, then maybe I’d have some respect for you as a human being.
But you don’t — so I won’t.
Actually, Pops @24 (and the moron @ 19), IT IS the “democrat” Party. You guys belong to the party of democrats, not democratics.
Likewise, the Republican Party is the party of Republicans, not Republics.
See? GWB is actually smarter than all of you put together. Bums ya out, don’t it?
pudge,
Goldy is not a “liar.” That is a very serious accusation, where I come from. You might disagree with his point of view, but that doesn’t make you right. Indeed, most of what you post seems to me to be wrong. I would not, however, accuse you of being a liar. I would suggest that you not throw around such terms so loosely.
I just saw my son’s school production of “Alice in Wonderland”. The dialogue in that play reminded me a lot of exchanges with Pudge.
Except what was happening on the stage made much more sense.
36 – Nope. No sale. The name of the party is and always has been what WE say it is.
Never what you haters on the right wing say.
BOY WAS I WRONG! I thought “Amen Bloggers” was a new grung band.
36 cmk
No. It is the Democratic Party because its name is the Democratic party. The term “Democrat Party” is merely one more example of the seemingly endless stream of childish dissing from the wingnuts.
As for your assertion that if you can provide some rationale that the Party must have the name you declare it to be, I’d just chalk that up to the usual Republican certainty that theory trumps reality. Reality is shitting all over you boys right now and you still can’t stop. Hilarious.
if anyone is still reading this thread, *this* is a textook example of the ad hominem argument. calling someone an amen blogger in this fashion is an attempt to undermine the argument by attacking the person. the garden variety name-calling found on this and other blogs is mostly not ad hominem attack, it is merely abuse, invective, whatever. so could people please stop geeking out, playing the victim and exhibiting their embarrassing pedantry by claiming to be the target of ad hominem attack when someone is merely getting off a good (or maybe lame) one at at someone else’s expense?