Rest-less because I need more sleep.
Restless also because I’ve taken to reading (things like this nugget of a revelation) and watching (check out Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus on Bloggingheads.tv) as many bits and bobs about the US presidential elections as my eyes can endure every day.
I’m entranced as I think the online media and blogosphere have been evolving beautifully to stay ahead of this old game, intertwined as they are like irreducible strands of communal DNA, the shared mind and memory. Kaus on Slate ruminates on this development charmingly — here are some choice bits for your delectation, with some annotation in [square brackets]:
What we’re witnessing, I think, is the death of a media paradigm that we lived with comfortably for, oh, the last year or two. And John Edwards [shiny-haired former Democratic presidental hopeful] is to blame! Here’s the relevant typology:
Model One: There’s the press, and the public. The press only prints “facts” that are checked and verified. That’s all the public ever finds out about. The press functions as “gatekeeper.”
Model Two: Model One broke down with the rise of blogs, which (along with tabloids and cable) often discuss rumors that are not “verified.” The public finds out about these rumors, as rumors. And it turns out that blogging obsessively about rumors is a pretty good way to smoke out the truth (see, e.g., Dan Rather).
But in Model Two, the rumors still don’t get reported in the “mainstream media” [MSM] — the respectable print press, the non-cable networks — until they are properly confirmed. Blogs and tabloids are a sort of intermediate nethersphere between public and the elite MSM that serves as a proving ground where the truth or falseness of the “undernews” gets hashed out. Stories that are true then graduate to the MSM.
Model Three: I thought Model Two would be a workable model for years, until either the MSM itself went totally online or until almost all voters stopped paying attention to it. I was wrong! The Edwards scandal did Model Two in. For months, the MSM failed to report the increasingly plausible rumors of John Edwards’s extramarital affair even as it became the widespread topic of conversation in blogs, in the National Enquirer, and among political types. The disconnect turned out to be painfully embarrassing for the MSM, especially when the rumors were finally “verified” with Edwards’ confession. A lot of what we are seeing now is the MSM not wanting to go through another Edwards experience.
Why can’t the MSM bear to fulfill its Model Two role? a) No press person likes to not be the center of attention. You want to talk about what people want to talk about. That’s how you make money, for one thing. And maintaining a disciplined silence on a rampant undernews rumor — even an unverified one — made too many reporters feel as if they worked for Pravda [offical mouthpiece of the Soviet Union till 1991]; b) Suppressing an undernews scandal about a Democrat subjected the MSM to charges of pro-liberal political bias (to which respectable organizations are particularly sensitive, because they are largely true); and c) even much of the left was disgusted by the MSM’s behavior regarding the Edwards rumor.
We are now, I think, making the next logical leap, to a model in which unverified rumors about public figures are discussed and assessed not just in the blogosphere or the unrespectable tabs but in the MSM itself. I say welcome! With NYT [New York Times] reporters and bloggers all openly discussing unverified reports, whatever is true will become un-unverified that much faster. And the public is proving, by and large, to be quite capable of distinguishing between stories that are true and rumors that are still being investigated. …
Once reporters start peppering campaigns with questions, after all, I suspect it will be impossible to keep a lid on whatever rumors the MSM is peppering the campaigns about. That’s particularly true in a “synergistic” world where a reporter like Howard Fineman not only writes for Newsweek but also appears on cable shows that have an imperative to discuss whatever is hot now. It’s particularly true in a Drudgian [rf. The Drudge Report] world where the activities of MSM reporters — what they’re working on, what questions they’re asking — is itself news for the Web. In that world, the line between “checking out” tips and open discussion of at least the non-actionable rumors can’t really be maintained and shouldn’t be, given the truth-divining virtues of widespread publicity (which functions as an APB [this means “all points bulletin” — kind of like a ‘wanted’ poster] to the citizenry to come up with evidence).
Smart political blogs excite me. A particularly solid post — perhaps evidenced by the sharp twist of a mercilessly logical conclusion or the patient unfolding of a fiendish origami (haha) of deceit — can leave me with a thrill that lasts for days.
Maybe I’m just a bit parched for scholarly conversation. (Not that I can necessarily hold my own in one, anyway; it could turn out like my recent attempt at swimming after many, many years — a bit of a flail in the murk.)
I am thirsty for something, and, God willing, I’m going to discover what.