mug     



Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Search




Advanced Search


Active Users
Currently 3 user(s) logged on.



Follow us on Twitter! or join our Facebook group!

The Proxy War: Fox News vs the Blogs

by: odum

Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:12:45 AM EDT


If you read more than just the Vermont blogs, you've undoubtedly heard about Bill O'Reilly's jihad against DailyKos, attempting to label it a "hate site." If you missed it, there isn't much to the narrative; O'Reilly thinks he can bully Kos out of existence by using troll rated comments to rationalize the harassment of a "Yearly Kos" convention sponsor (Jet Blue) out of the program. In that he has been partially successful, but of course this has done nothing but fire up the netroots crowd who are not only (of course) finding more objectionable user comments on O'Reilly's own site (as well as targeting his sponsors), but have also begun to get organized and coalesce into a netroots driven, rapid response, anti-Fox truth squad. O'Reilly's return volley has been simply to become obsessive in his attacks on dKos by trying to brings his TV guests into the fight, demanding they join him in comparing bloggers like us to nazis, the Klan, Mussolini, Al Capone, etc.

But thereisnospoon is now reporting that the battle has been joined by Sean Hannity (Hannity, for those who don't listen to talk radio or watch Fox, is the slightly dumber version of Rush Limbaugh who doesn't talk about himself as incessantly). Hannity is now attacking The Huffington Post on air, again based on comments users have posted on her site (and again, there are even nastier comments on Hannity's own site).

This begs the question as to whether or not we're seeing the beginnings of an all-out proxy war between the two major political parties being waged by their media manifestations.

odum :: The Proxy War: Fox News vs the Blogs

If we are, you couldn't pick better avatars. The blogs are a decentralized phenomenon frequented by an astonishing number of people across the country that mushroom independently, but function in loose, almost communitarian concert. There is no head to cut off that would cause the body to fail. Fox, on the other hand, is not just a corporate entity, but an old-school corporate behemoth still run as an institutional totalitarianism by the legendary media mogul, Rupert Murdoch. In the short term, you have to give the advantage to Fox in terms of sheer media power, but in the long run it's hard to imagine any force outside of a complete governmental crackdown that could ever do more than annoy the blogosphere. Fox, on the other hand, is comparatively vulnerable - especially when you consider that they are a media force in ratings decline, while the blogosphere continues to grow. Fox's widening of the war is clearly an act of unmitigated hubris that - in an example of an exceptionally unbusiness-savvy strategic decision - places only itself at risk.

Still, it's interesting to wax futuristic when you look at this. Could we be looking ahead into the partisan wars of the future, here? As the major parties come to have more in common with media organizations, could this be a glimpse into the next evolution of the parties themselves, rather than simply their proxies? It would be an interesting sort of instiutional sci-fi indeed to glance decades ahead to see the Democratic party essentially merging with the netroots, and the GOP becoming a right-wing traditional media machine like Fox (even more interesting when you consider that the head of Fox is not an American citizen)? Would such an evolution lock in the current power structure, or break it open? Would the lines between a netroots-Democratic Party and the greater inhabitants of the American left blur enough to recreate the party as home for disenfranchised lefties (and even Greens)?

Yeah, yeah. All sci-fi, I know, but fun to ponder all the same. I sense a novel here (Philip, let's talk...)

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Raise Your Voice!
It's not a party war (4.00 / 1)
This isn't Democrat vs. Republican.  This is authoritarian vs. people-powered and I think Fox News is about to get clobbered.  Until now, it's just been a matter of Fox news being the schoolyard bullies that everyone else puts up with because it's easier to let them strut around and bluster than to really bother doing much of anything about them.

The whole Jet Blue thing totally changed the dynamic, especially given that within days of that, bloggers were able to get Lowes to withdraw its advertising from O'Reilly's show,

The thing about O'Reilly is that he walks around like some sort of street fighter, talking big about everything, but I don't think he knows a thing about how to actually fight except by shouting other people down.

When he tried to go after Al Franken, he got slapped down -hard- in court.  When it comes to the blogs-- does he seriously think he can win that battle?  He relies on advertisers.  Advertisers are the only thing that keeps his pathetic little show on the air, and more importantly, it's mainstream advertisers.  Blogs are loaded with people who do this stuff for free and most of these blogs get supported not by mainstream advertisers but by leftie alternate media (and, apparently, occasionally penis enlargement ads, but we won't go there :-) ). 

Mainstream media doesn't want to get caught up in controversy which places O'Reilly in a really bad place here, entirely of his own making.  This is a lot more fun than watching him and Olbermann snark at one another.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer


JulieWaters has it right (4.00 / 1)

JulieWaters has it right; in my opinion anyway. I don't know about the Fox getting clobbered bit, and on that issue I don't really care. But this spat between the MSM and internet blogs/news sources is about control from the top down vs. participatory democracy.

One source I really suggest reading on this subject is "The Third Wave" by Heidi and Alvin Toffler. This circa 1990 book talks about the (what was then coming) power of the internet and how it would cause friction between established powers of government and business and new powers of non-localized but still easily connected organizations.

For example national governments have built their powerbase from constituencies defined by geo-political borders. What happens when an organization who's constituency is international and a government clash? In 1985 the French government sank the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior because Greenpeace was going to interfere with France's nuclear testing in the Pacific.

We're not talking all warm and fuzzy here, though. Al Qaeda too is one of those organizations who has used the easy communications afforded by the Internet.

But all in all, JulieWaters is spot on.



It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

[ Parent ]
I think you guys... (4.00 / 1)

...Are making a mistake if you really think this thing is not taking on the qualities of a proxy partisan war. Come next year I think it'll be more pronounced as we'll see a level of partisan coordination on both sides at a level we haven't seen before. It's not as romantic a notion as "the powerful vs. the powerless," but in truth it doesn't have to be one or the other - which is precisely why the feedback of such battles has the potential to acttuly transform the parties themselves over the long term.

I think the mistake youre making, Rama, is that you're coming at this from the standpoint that - as a given - the Democrats and Republicans are essentially the bad guys, and will always be the bad guys. That the netroots revolution = participatory democracy = a good thing. And "a good thing" doesn't mix with the "bad guys," so my whole premise must be faulty because it does in fact mix the two.

The problem is that it's a faith-based premise. It ascribes a teleological quality of evil to "the Democrats." It's not unlike when I hear my conservative relatives say that all this talk that Islam is a peaceful religion, or suggesting that moderate muslims should be supported is nonsense because Islam is inherently violent and evil, and that's the way it is, and that's the way it'll always be.

Any institution of human association like that - be it religious like Islam, or partisan like the Democrats - does not exist in a vacuum. They can change the greater culture, but are also equally subject to being changed by the culture. If enough people say Islam is a peaceful religion - it doesn't matter whether it is or not, it becomes one. If enough people say the Democrats are - well, are NOT evil - then, like any other associational institution, it can become what is projected into it.

To that end, as I respond to my family members, it is in their interest to promote the peaceful, moderate forms of Islam in areas where people may be practicing more violent interpretations. It's transformative.

It's equally in your interest to envision participatory democracy inhabiting the same space as the Democratic Party. It's transformative (not to mention realistic, as the progressive blogosphere is clearly inhabiting much of the same space as the Dem party and is clearly beginning to transform it - along with every other institution it touches).

And unless you're ascribing some absolute mystical quality to "the Democrats," they - like any other such institution - are in constant motion. The only way to deny that is to elevate them to some sort of mystical evil - which is, again, a faith-based perspective.



Nullius perfectus est

[ Parent ]
Clarification (4.00 / 1)
...if you really think this thing is not taking on the qualities of a proxy partisan war.

Arguing about its "qualities" is a bit different from arguing about its nature. It could become partisan, but right now there are reasons no political parties have anything to do with this.

I don't think, by the way, that this is romantic at all. I think this is about a changing of the guard. Fox News, for a brief while, was New Media. I.e., they approached "news" in a new fashion, making their presentation more engaging to viewers and creating a blend of what is more or less a cross between CNN & Inside Edition. The fact that it's got a conservative bent to it isn't about the media itself; it's just their ideological bias. For a brief time, they were the new guys and they played that status to immense profit. Now that they've become really bloated and entrenched, they don't know if they'll survive when they're no longer new media.

The reason I say this isn't partisan, by the way, is because it really doesn't have anything to do with Democrats or Republicans. It's manifested itself as a right-wing vs. left-wing battle but that's because O'Reilly, who really doesn't have any genuine political ideology as much as just a stupid frat boy mentality, is the one who picked the fight. If Wolf Blitzer had tried to pull crap like this, it would be happening to CNN instead. Blitzer, fortunately for him, may be a coward and a tool, but isn't a complete idiot.

That said, what I think is most entertaining about this still that Fox seems to have never seen it coming and within five months or so, will probably really regret this whole mess.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

[ Parent ]
i dont see how... (4.00 / 1)

... you can say this:

The reason I say this isn't partisan, by the way, is because it really doesn't have anything to do with Democrats or Republicans.

Fox is full of explicitly Republican staffers. Folks who came right out of that structure. The blogs they are targeting are DailyKos and HuffPo - again, explicitly partisan sites.

What you say is true, and yet its also equally true that there's a partisan quality to this. GOP institutions interact very differently with, for example, Green institutions. SOmetimes even promoting them.

There's a dialectic going on in this battle, rather than just a simple bipoarity. And partisanship is clearly a part of that dialectic, and not just in an incidental way (consider the timing with elections starting to heat up).



Nullius perfectus est

[ Parent ]
Republican staffers, probably, but... (4.00 / 1)

I don't think O'Reilly gives a damn about the Republican party (or anyone but O'Reilly) and I don't think whether or not it hurts or harms them electorally will have any impact whatsoever on how he behaves here.  For that matter, Huffington post freuqently has material opposing the front-running Democratic candidate.  I don't think it's as simple a dichotomy as you're making it out to be.  



Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

[ Parent ]
interesting (4.00 / 1)

I don't think it's as simple a dichotomy as you're making it out to be.

I was going to say the same thing about you ;-)

My point is that the dynamic you lay out is not exclusive of a rtisan dynamic. I think both of those things - and more - are at play.



Nullius perfectus est

[ Parent ]
Odum, cut the crap (4.00 / 1)

Odum wrote:

"I think the mistake youre making, Rama, is that you're coming at this from the standpoint that - as a given - the Democrats and Republicans are essentially the bad guys, and will always be the bad guys. That the netroots revolution = participatory democracy = a good thing. And "a good thing" doesn't mix with the "bad guys," so my whole premise must be faulty because it does in fact mix the two."

To which I simply reply: drop the crap, Odum. I didn't mention Dems, Repubs or other in my post. For that matter I agreed with the concept this WASN'T about Dems or Repubs.

It appears to me, Odum, that you ignored what I wrote so you could substitute what you wanted me to write.

Sheeesh.



It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

[ Parent ]
Uhh... o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-kay (2.50 / 2)

Not really into this discuss/debate/open-exchange thing, eh?

S'okay. The forum works for one-way pontificating as well. But I can't guarantee you that others won't also engage with your comments in a way that doesn't meet with your personal approval as well.



Nullius perfectus est

[ Parent ]
Odum, your privalege and my privalege (4.00 / 1)

Once again, Odum, you are not even addressing anything that is in the post I made. That is, of course, your privalege ... BUT it is also my privalege to point out a full of crap response when a full of crap response is made.

It has no more to do with my personal approval then my original post in this thread had to do with Dems and Repubs. Both of these were and are figments of your imagination.

 



It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

[ Parent ]
whatever (2.00 / 2)

It has no more to do with my personal approval then my original post in this thread had to do with Dems and Repubs.

Inconveniently for you, the diary is very much about Ds and Rs, thus contextualizing your comments. As are your other comments in other threads contextualizing your comments in here. As do mine. Vacuums-r-not-us.

Both of these were and are figments of your imagination.

So I am a little bit curious about the Mr. Hyde routine here. Did I hit a nerve?

Whatever. Knock yerself out, pal. I've been down this road a-plenty on this blog.



Nullius perfectus est

[ Parent ]
Blogs don't hit nerves (4.00 / 1)

Blogs don't hit my nerves.

You, Odum, took a conversation regarding a Fox v Kos where you claimed it was a political party thing.

A responder stated she(?) disagreed, and I agreed with the responder that is was NOT about partisan Dem/Repub politics.

You, Odum, proceeded to set up a strawman Rama: "I think the mistake youre making, Rama, is that you're coming at this from the standpoint that - as a given - the Democrats and Republicans are essentially the bad guys, and will always be the bad guys. That the netroots revolution = participatory democracy = a good thing. And "a good thing" doesn't mix with the "bad guys," so my whole premise must be faulty because it does in fact mix the two.

The problem is that it's a faith-based premise. It ascribes a teleological quality of evil to "the Democrats." It's not unlike when I hear my conservative relatives say that all this talk that Islam is a peaceful religion, or suggesting that moderate muslims should be supported is nonsense because Islam is inherently violent and evil, and that's the way it is, and that's the way it'll always be."

Rather than discuss the idea you decided you'd rather deal with what you believed to be my personality - attack the messenger, and ignore the topic.

So, when I called your response crap .. I meant it was just that .. crap.



It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

[ Parent ]
? (0.00 / 0)

I meant it was just that .. crap.

Why?

One of these days, I'll find a Green-type out there who is actually willing to talk about this stuff outside their comfort zone. They must be out there. When I was a third-partier, I would've.



Nullius perfectus est

[ Parent ]
Ruh-oh. (0.00 / 0)
Perspective, perspective, perspective.
In our frequent and lively early morning conversations, way back in them good ole days on Jacques Street on top of that hill, you and I agreed on more than we disagreed on.
But I seem to recall frequent...uh...differences of opinion as to the character and nature of political parties, and party politics.
It is interesting to see from your postings here that neither of us have changed......>;)

Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.

[ Parent ]
I once tried being a Democrat (0.00 / 0)
Kes, I once tried being an active member of the Democratic Party. Didn't like.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

[ Parent ]
I feel ya (0.00 / 0)
Due to a religious conversion in my mid-twenties, I impulsively went and re-registered as a Green. Then, when a slate of candidates developed and I started talking to them, I was mortified. "Oh, dear Goddess, what have I done?"
And I went straight down to the DMV and flipped back.

Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.

[ Parent ]
How to contact O'Reilly Advertisers (0.00 / 0)

Newshounds ("We watch FOX so you don't have to") has contact information for O'Reilly's advertisers.

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/07/24/advertisers_on_the_oreilly_factor_update_707.php 

 

Try to write them.  Nothing better than seeing an arrogant bully get his comeuppance.

 

P.S.  Duh, i just got it...newshounds, as in fox and hounds.  Took me a while. 

 

-r 



Wow... (0.00 / 0)

O'Reilly's really reaching now. Lookie.

And Rama and Odum, play nice.



You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. Politics. Godlessness. Music. Films of questionable quality. It's all there, folks.


GMD Links

Vermont Daily Briefing
Rational Resistance
VT News Guy
VT Digger
Minor Heresies
What's the Point?
Vermont Yankee, evacuation plans, & more
Mulish Behavior
Political Animal (with Steve Benen)
Reason and Brimstone
Blazing Indiscretions
sneigwh
Dohiyi Mir
Blier Watch
five before chaos
Blue Hampshire
Blue News Tribune
Burlington Pol
Norsehorse
Rip & Read
Integral Psychosis
VT Secession
Tenselblog
VT Bloggernaut
Morgan's Gov. race blog
Bureaucracy Blog
Austanspace

Non-political

Candleblog
iBrattleboro
WKVT 1490 AM
Vermont Mornings
False 45th
Bosox Wally

National

Congress Matters
Daily Kos
Open Left
BlogPac
Talking Points Memo
My Left Wing
MyDD
Docudharma
Glenn Greenwald
Firedoglake
Atrios (Eschaton)
Think Progress
Driftglass
Pam's House Blend
Hullabaloo (Digby)
The Plum Line (Sargent)

Legacy Media Blogs

Vermont View
vt buzz
Blurt (7 Days)

International

The Irish Independent
Comment is free...(Guardian UK)
Al Jazeera
Pulse Media
Global Voices
All Voices
Vermonters for a Just Peace in Israel/Palestine




Specialized Feeds:

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Subscribe with Bloglines
Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Add to My AOL
Subscribe in Rojo
R|Mail
Add to Technorati Favorites!


RSS FEED

250-1

55-1


blog advertising is good for you
Event Calendar
February 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 * * *
<< (add event) >>



Featured Stories
State and Local
National and International




Powered by: SoapBlox