A Single Southern Guy In America

« THE LOVERS, THE DREAMERS, AND ME | Main | Union Violence » March 25, 2004 Insta-Bias And now for something completely off the previous topics... I think Insta-pundit is biased. Of course, he is, you say. The name 'pundit' implies an opinionated look at topics. I'll grant that up front, but I'll add that for those many, many people who look to his blog for their news, the incredible amounts of traffic he has and the disproportionate amount of influence he wields not only in the blogosphere but within the mainstream media, he should be a bit more careful with the linkages he provides. Heck, a word has even been coined to describe a link from him. How is he biased you ask? In the continuing coverage of the Richard Clarke story as it were. Yes, we normally do not wade into the political realm here, but I have a bit of a dog in this fight. You see, I went to work for a man who despite his inadequacies as a politician offered a heck of an alternative to the current nominees for the White House. That man told me and others that in the days immediately following 9-11, that the administration was trying to find a way to link those events to Iraq and begin a campaign there. Because I knew that man I believed him and now, another man has come out to say the same thing, and he would have been in a position to know. What irks me most about the Clarke brouhaha is the immediate attacks to assail his credibility because of a message. The message that is most important to me is that the administration was trying to hang 9-11 on Saddam Hussein immediately and has continued to try to despite the continued lack of damning, smoking gun, strong evidence. Clarke's book, testimony, etc., notes that drive to link the two again. His detractors are trying to detroy his credibility in a transparent effort to mitigate his message. So far they're doing a pretty good job (not that he hasn't helped them plenty). Still, I'd say that if we were going to weigh his credibility we should focus much more tightly on primary sources and not OpEd pieces, commentary, and interpretations. Unfortunately, as I have read over the Instapundit posts regarding Clarke, a disturbing pattern (to me at least) emerged. Most of the links offered are to opinions, commentary, interpretations, and in at least one instance, a mention of a news article that misrepresented the actual content of the piece. By my count, I see links to 8 opinion pieces, one letter from a GOP congressman, 3 transcripts, a WaPo story about the rise of partisan posturing over the 9-11 Commission, and a USA Today story that he characterizes as illustrating Clarke flip-flops but is actually about how the White House is targeting Bush. Now, it must be said that I have been and remain a big fan of the Instapundit, but there comes a point when an issue he's helping to bake requires some objectiveness among his links. Like it or not, he has become undeniably influential with the mainstream media from his following by members of the press as well as the mass of bloggers. He'd serve us all well by pointing us to more primary sources and less opines. UPDATE: While writing that post, I find that he has done it again. This time he has linked to a Time magazine opinion piece. MORE: Kevin notes that the Instapundit dogpile is spreading into mainstream media. The links--the aforementioned Time opinion piece, two NY Post op-ed pieces, a post by Natalie about blogs forcing mainstream media to the Clarke contradictions story, and a link to Drezner's post that speculates (speculation) that Clarke is grinding an ax because of a demotion. My question is if the bloggers pushed this story on Clarke into the mainstream media who is pushing the bloggers? With so many citations of opinion about this story, it makes wonder whether the blogosphere is going the way of the mainstream media so many of us are loathe to criticize. Posted by Adam H at March 25, 2004 04:16 PM ~ Link Cosmos | Trackbacks (0) Comments The current issue of Vanity Fair has a great article about blogging and the most popular blogs. It does speak very highly of a few of them, particularly Andrew Sullivan. Posted by: Carrie at March 26, 2004 09:14 PM The current issue of Vanity Fair has a great article about blogging and the most popular blogs. It does NOT speak very highly of a few of them, particularly Andrew Sullivan. Posted by: Carrie at March 26, 2004 09:14 PM Wonderful post, thank you for writing it. Posted by: Miss Bliss at March 30, 2004 11:22 AM Post a comment Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? YesNo Comments:

Howdy!

Welcome to my humble little corner of the blogosphere! Not too many rules here--love your neighbor, go easy on the brews, and don't shoot the jukebox. Make yourself at home and remember Momma don't like for you to put your feet on the kitchen table.

Our Sponsors

Archives