A couple of very prominent bloggers are wondering how influential blogs really are. Dan Drezner posts:
There’s been a lot of chest-thumping in the blogosphere — and a lot of hand-wringing in the mediasphere — about Eason Jordan’s resignation from CNN.
Most of this debate is on whether Jordan’s blog-fueled exit is good or bad. For me, there’s another question — did the blogosphere really force him out?
He concludes that the blogosphere functioned as a pretext for CNN to dismiss Jordan.
Kevin Drum has similar thoughts on his mind:
I went a bit further, though: just how influential is the blogosphere, anyway? Were we really responsible for Trent Lott’s downfall? Dan Rather’s resignation? Keeping the National Guard story alive? Sure, those stories got a ton of play in blogs, but the fact that blogs played them up doesn’t mean they were responsible for what happened afterward.
He conjectures that the blogosphere had at least some influence, particularly in the Trent Lott situation.
If you’re familiar with volleyball, you’ll recognize a familiar sequence of actions. A member of one team will attack. A defender will bump the ball i.e. block the attack and loft the ball high enough into the air so as to allow a fellow-teammate to set the ball i.e. place it into a good position for a counter-attack. Finally, a striker will leap into the air and spike the ball over the net with considerable force. It’s the teamwork that makes the play.
I wonder if the blogosphere isn’t bumping. Bloggers are deflecting the ball and putting it up into the air. If an old-line journalist takes the opportunity to set the issue, then someone with real power and influence (whether it be political opponents in the Senate, top management at CBS or CNN or what-have-you) actually spikes.
And, as in volleyball, it’s the teamwork—the synergy—that makes the play.
