In reflection on the CBS vs. the right blogosphere Bill Quick writes:
There is a tectonic phenomenon at work here that is going to become much more obvious over the next few years. It is this: the incentives inherent in the structure of the old media encourage, and come very close to guaranteeing, dishonesty. The structure of the blogosphere, on the other hand, encourages, and comes very close to guaranteeing, honesty.
Hat tip: Dean Esmay.
If this were true it would be great, but, unfortunately, it does not appear to be true. What the structure of the blogosphere encourages is, in fact, faction. Take a look at the top of the N. Z. Bear Ecosystem, the food chain of the blogosphere:
Rank Blog Faction 1 Instapundit Red 2 Talking Points Memo Blue 3 Daily Kos Blue 4 Little Green Footballs Red 5 Eschaton Blue 6 Power Line Red 7 Daily Dish I can’t tell anymore 8 Drudge Report Red 9 Blogs for Bush Red 10 The Volokh Conspiracy Red
And I’m a humble Flappy Bird in the Ecosystem, typically ranking 2,500—3,500. Thanks for asking.
The Red/Blue assignments of these blogs are vastly oversimplified and some may be incorrect. If you examine the details on these blogs, the Blue faction may have something of an advantage in traffic. But it’s obvious that there are at least two factions.
These were the factions that I was writing about in my post Antiphony. Not only do the factions disagree on the interpretation of the facts, they disagree on what the facts are. From yesterday’s QandO:
At this point, I think I’m gonna drop discussing the CBS memos any longer. With the exception of a few holdouts, the vast majority of document experts that have come out have stated their belief that, with the evidence they’ve seen, the CBS memos appear to be computer-generated forgeries.
So, I think it’s kinda pointless to spend any more time getting down in the weeds, discussing the number of twips the horizontal space of a Palatino Linotype “h” takes up. The prople who do that sort of thing professionally already seem to have weighed in on the side of forgery, except for a few holdouts, so I’m not sure what more I have to add. If you think the whole raft of forensic document analysts that have publicly stated that conclusion are wrong, then go right ahead.
So the matter is settled, right?
From yesterday’s Brad DeLong’s Semi-Daily Journal:
So the next question appears to be, “Did Jerry Killian’s office have an IBM Executive Model D typewriter, and are there other documents from his office at the time that demonstrate this?”
Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.: …the [IBM Executive] Model D can produce those documents, not only did it do proportional spacing, you could order any font that IBM produced AND order keys that had the aftmentioned superscripted “th.” Also you could order the platen, thats the roller that grabs the paper, in a 54 tooth configuration that produced space, space and a half and double spacing on the line indexing, this BTW was popular in legal offices. The Model D had to be ordered from a IBM salesmen and was not something that was a off the shelf item, typical delivery time were 4-6 weeks. Also, typewriter keys were changed in the field all the time, its not that hard to do.
Both of these bloggers are very intelligent guys. Both are pretty prominent in the blogosphere. And they don’t agree on what the facts are. This is not a formula for honesty, as Mr. Quick suggests. This is faction. Isolation. Total disconnect.
UPDATE: In the comments section of this Obsidian Wings post the very disconnect that I’m talking about is taking place. Both sides are well-informed, intelligent, articulate people. Who don’t even agree on what the facts are.
Now to be fair to Mr. Quick I do believe that within a faction the honing of a particular argument, the crafting of a prevailing narrative can be very rapid and very thorough. But because the blogosphere is not about honesty but about choice both readers and writers are free to reject the narratives of opposing factions out-of-hand. They just ignore them completely. They’re completely invisible to them.
What’s so bad about this situation? I’ll let James Madison speak for me. From Federalist No. 10:
Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, nonedeserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments, never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail therefore to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils, have in truth been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American Constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side as was wished and expected. Complaints are every where heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, usually the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty; that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. . . . These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice, with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results: and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties. . . .
The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
