SPIEGEL on Bloggers: Political Pawns and "Sweating Swingers"

(By Ray D.)

SPIEGEL ONLINE, that great German Rosetta Stone of media objectivity, has just located the source media-political corruption in the United States. They've just uncovered another massive Bush administration conspiracy and struck a further blow for journalistic integrity. They've exposed the corruption of the media "anti-elite" and identified an online power vacuum filled with dangerous right-wingers who threaten truth, justice and the German way.

And who is to blame? Bush and the Bloggers. Who else?

In two recent articles, bloggers are characterized as corrupt, partisan, paid-off and out of control. And since no one in Germany currently fits that description, our friends at SPIEGEL have bravely set out to warn German readers of the grave dangers of the American blogosphere.

The first article, entitled "Buyable Bloggers: Sweating Swingers," was authored by none other than Marc Pitzke, SPIEGEL ONLINE's master of the profound. His prime example of what he labels "buyable bloggers" is Andrew Sullivan, of whom he writes:

"Bloggers pride themselves as the anti-elite of the media branch. But the upstart revolutionaries (Revoluzzer) have long since begun to come to terms with corporations. There have already been mergers between the once sworn enemies (Todfeinde).

New York - "Time" Editor in Chief Jim Kelly sent out the invitation, and the crème de la crème of the press scene danced in. Shoulder to shoulder they pressed into Kelly's apartment, beer bottles and cocktail glasses in abundance: Bill Keller, the lord of the "New York Times," Hendrik Hertzberg from "New Yorker" CNN ratings savior Anderson Cooper and others.

The guest of honor was someone else: Andrew Sullivan, the conservative-gay-Catholic-HIV-positive blog pioneer, who after five years of fighting alone on the internet sold his online flare-ups (Web-Wallungen) to "Time."

The "Time" -Sullivan merger is one of the first marriages between established media and their supposed sworn enemies, the bloggers. Sullivan collected a license fee of an unknown amount. And Kelly hopes that Sullivan's "unmistakable, individual voice" represents the beginning of a "blog community at Time.com.""

Unfortunately, the author is both wrong and completely out of his league. Andrew Sullivan may be an avid critic of major media, but he also possesses a journalistic resume that flat out dwarves Marc Pitzke. Furthermore, many successful bloggers have worked or are currently working in traditional media. To say that bloggers are the "sworn enemies" of the mainstream media establishment is an ignorant, sweeping generalization that could only have been made by someone with no real understanding of the blogosphere.  To further characterize bloggers as "buyable" purveyors of "gossip" and "acidic commentary" reflects little more than a cheap attempt to smear new media.

The second article is a true SPIEGEL ONLINE conspiracy classic entitled "Iraqi Government Documents: Anyone can be an Intelligence Analyst." Author Karl Doeleke cleverly uncovers the clandestine nexus between bloggers and the Bush administration:

"The American intelligence agencies have been publishing Iraqi government documents for two weeks on the internet. Since then, part-time agents have listed new evidence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq on conservative weblogs. President Bush must be happy about that. (...)

Several professional intelligence analysts are appalled at the very idea that the bloggers are so enthusiastic about: That anyone can view the documents and cobble together their own pre-war scenario. "There is no quality control" complains former CIA terror specialist Michael Scheuer. "There are going to be people out there with dangerous half knowledge who will come to crazy conclusions," he warns.

Of course the crazies with a dangerous lack of knowledge are "above all conservative bloggers." And what appears to be a useful exercise in grass roots democracy is exposed by Doeleke as another brilliant conspiracy masterminded by the Bush administration:

"Behind the supposedly grass roots action there is obviously political calculation: Peter Hokestra, Republican and Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in Congress, was behind the publication of the files. The reason for the publication was given as using "the power of the internet" to evaluate what would otherwise take the government decades, says the "New York Times." "The people should get a direct view of Saddam's regime."

But Doeleke doesn't allow for distraction, and boldly reveals the true reason behind the documents' release:

"But the timing of the release gives the files, above all, a political brisance: Never before was the public approval so low for the Iraq mission. A newly kindled debate on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction could bring George Bush new approval. The intelligence historian John Prados from the National Security Archive suspects: "The government is under pressure because it went to war without a concrete threat. The objective must therefore be to create the impression that the threat was real."

The tactic appears to be succeeding: Above all, right-wing bloggers emphasize those documents that have to do with a meeting of Osama bin Laden with an Iraqi intelligence officer in 1995 in Sudan, a program for training Arab fanatics as suicide bombers as well as a document that speaks of the use of chemical weapons against Kurds.

That the Bush administration has long come to the conclusion that Iraq possessed no forbidden weapons of mass destruction before the invasion three years ago plays no role in the weblogs. "It isn't about politics," says blogger Robinson. "It's about the truth."

Of course. The documents were released as part of a grand conspiracy to win support for the Bush administration through the clever manipulation of dangerous, out-of-control right-wing bloggers. Why were we all so blind? When in doubt, blame Bush.

The only problem with this spectacular theory is that the documents have hardly made news and there is virtually no evidence to suggest that they are helping Bush's approval ratings. Mr. Doeleke's assumption that there is no "quality control" in the blogosphere is also a ridiculous fallacy. Bloggers are constantly reviewed and challenged by other bloggers, by readers and, in some cases, by members of the media. Bloggers who consistently fudge or take facts out of context don't usually get very far in terms of influencing national public opinion.

The ridiculous generalizations and paranoid conspiracy theories that riddle both articles thinly veil SPIEGEL ONLINE's burning desire to stigmatize bloggers as corrupt, partisan and out of control. The blogosphere already represents a viable alternative to traditional media in the United States, and nothing is more frightening to the SPON crowd than the prospect of powerful media alternatives taking hold in Germany and beyond.

Comments

[James W.]

Mr. Doeleke's assumption that there is no "quality control" in the blogosphere is also a ridiculous fallacy.

Hey, it seems I'm QC inspector #1 today.

Looks fine to me!

[Scott_H]

Actually, I do believe there are, or were, some "buyable bloggers." Problem is, Mr. Pitzke is looking on the wrong side of the political spectrum for evidence of this:

Daily Kos

"Zephyr Teachout, Director of Internet Organizing for Dean's campaign, who posted on the subject in her blog. [4] Teachout said,

"On Dean’s campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients."

"Meanwhile, Chris Suellentrop of Slate criticized Moulitsas not for taking money from the Dean campaign — something he told his readers about — but for working as a political consultant for candidates for whom he raised money on his site."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos

[Don Miguel]

"'There is no quality control' complains former CIA terror specialist Michael Scheuer. 'There are going to be people out there with dangerous half knowledge who will come to crazy conclusions,' he warns."

Oh, but it's all right for Mr. Scheuer to write and sell a book under the name "Anonymous" to further his own agenda (and that of his employer at the time) in order to damage the administration of his own government in a time of war just because HE doesn't like the course of action taken by elected officials. Considering that Scheuer is a person who spends his time in public covering his ass for his own and his employer's failures, I'd say some “crazy conclusions” other than his own so-called "professional" opinions are sorely needed. What’s wrong, Michael? Are you afraid everyone will see what a political hack you really are and what a half-assed job you did?

[Scott_H]

You can't win for losing. There have been lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act to try to get the government to release more WMD information since before the Iraqi war began. Now that they've started to release more info, all people can see are political motives.

Who cares *why* the information was released? With conspiracy nuts already running amok, how can anyone argue that making more information available is a bad thing? This is precisely what "they" wanted: more info about WMD.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for...you just might get it.

[Elmo]

Not even an original thought.

http://anechoicroom.blogspot.com/2005/12/mental-illness-is-never-pretty.html

And well der Biegel lost me when they held Andy up as a prime example of a "conservative." Andy wandered off the reservation blogtimelightyears ago

[pikkupoika]

Somehow, reading this post reminded me about Leonard Cohen's First We Take Manhattan A good theme song for Medienkritik ;)

"They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
For trying to change the system from within
I'm coming now, I'm coming to reward them
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

I'm guided by a signal in the heavens
I'm guided by this birthmark on my skin
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin"

"Ah you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win
You know the way to stop me, but you don't have the discipline
How many nights I prayed for this, to let my work begin
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin"

[Helian]

I love it! Hate pedlar Pitzke, Spiegel's America basher number 1, and an ass-kissing, boot-licking lackey of Bertelsmann, is criticizing Andrew Sullivan because "he sold out to Time." Let's see, Andrew Sullivan quit his job as editor of TNR because he was unwilling to compromise his political principles. He was fired from a cushy post at the NYT for the same reason. He is an outstanding independent thinker whose blog has not noticeably changed since he started working for Time. But Pitzke, a shill who would never dare to wander so much as a step off the reservation, whispers in mock horror to the imbeciles who still take him seriously that Andrew has "sold out." Pitzke's style is, of course, unmistakable. McCarthyite innuendo? Check! The usual precious Spiegelesque expressions of hatred, scorn and contempt? Check! Complete lack of even the faintest attempt to explain to his readers who Sullivan is, or what he stands for? Check! One-sided, half-baked propaganda thinly disquised as news? Check! Squeak on, little mouse, and feel the heat. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. It will soon be coming to a server near you.