NYT: "In Politics, the Web is a Parallel World with Rules of Its Own"
From NYT:
IT was a sharp video attack, jarring in a political season that has been unusually short on negative advertising. A woman, sitting at a keyboard, seeks information about Senator John Kerry on the Internet. She unearths all sorts of scandalizing tidbits.
...
The one-minute spot, introduced a week ago, did not appear on television, but on President Bush’s campaign Web site. And so a new bare-knuckled political use of the World Wide Web showed its head: the Internet attack ad.
When the Web was in its infancy, Internet utopians envisioned a political revolution, predicting that the new medium would engage and empower voters as never before. Much of what they envisioned has come to pass, with the Internet facilitating vigorous debate this year, most dramatically, giving Howard Dean’s campaign the ability to raise millions.
But part of the Web’s appeal has been its unbridled nature, and it is showing that it can act as a back alley — where punches can be thrown and things can be said that might be deemed out of place, even if just at a particular moment, in the full light of the mainstream media.
“The principals themselves feel like they can act out there in a way that they wouldn’t dare to do in the mainstream media,’’ said Jonathan Zittrain, a director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.
...
The tension between the different strata of media was evident when The Drudge Report, the news Web site, recently reported that several major news organizations were investigating a rumor that Mr. Kerry may have had an extramarital affair.
Unlike the Monica Lewinsky scandal, news of which The Drudge Report also broke, the Kerry rumor had no accompanying criminal investigation, which could justify coverage by itself, and newsrooms across the country found themselves in a state of paralysis — caught between ignoring a story millions already knew about or validating a charge without independent confirmation.
...
Mickey Kaus, who had discussed the ethics of reporting the rumor on his Web blog, kausfiles.com, agreed that two different journalism worlds exist and he said that it’s a good thing.
“Clearly we seem to be settling into an equilibrium where standards on the Web are different, and people can live with that as long as the mainstream press behaves the way it behaved during this latest scandal, which is to say they stick to their own standards,’’ Mr. Kaus said.
On the Internet, he said, a large number of people can get wind of the sorts of conversations taking place in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms.
“Now everybody can know what the political pros know,’’ he said. “So if you’re a voter concerned about electability, you want to know Kerry’s potential problems down the road. Now you have a vague idea, and you can discount them or take them into account depending on what you think.’’
Matt's Chat
OK, so we have two issues to deal with here: (1) the "attack" ad that the Bush re-election team put out on their website; and (2) the media's behavior regarding the Kerry sex scandal.As for the internet ad, I believe it is entirely appropriate for the re-election team to return political fire. For far too long, the Democrats have been using this President as a punching bag. They have resorted to dispicable tricks and tactics at a time when the nation is at war. I don't think it is out of line to shed light on the truth about a guy who is claiming to be against special interests. And I can hear the hamsters now: "But Matt, don't you get it, President Bush takes more money from special interests than anybody who ever lived." Whatever. This President isn't the one saying that he's going to "show special interests the door." That would be YOUR guy. And when your guy has taken more special interest money than any other senator, I think the American people have a right to know that. The press sure isn't going to call Kerry on it; so, the campaign will have to do that for them.
The second issue is the media's bias against Republicans. It is well documented how the media got in to a feeding frenzy over unproven and unsubstantiated RUMORS over an affair allegation with Bush 41. We've seen the press continue to hammer Bush 43 with the National Guard story (and who is responsible for bringing that crap back up? Michael "Miserable Failure" Moore, the Hamster King; and Terry McAwwful, head of the Democratic National Committee.) which has no basis in reality. The truth is that if this story had been about Bush 43 instead of John F-ing. Kerry, they would have shouted it from the hilltops; they wouldn't have been able to get the story out soon enough.
The web does have rules of it's own. And it is infinately more fair and balanced than the "mainstream" media has ever been. Thank God for Matt Drudge and the dedicated bloggers who refuse to be swindled by the liberal bias in the media.
Mark's Remarks
Boy, don't you just love how objective our mainstream media is? Where were they during the last three years when the MORONS at (we just can't seem to)moveon.org have been peppering the internet with hate ads about Bush, comparing him to Hitler, comparing him to an evil dictator, taking pot shots at his record, making up songs about him that are not true, creating mean spirited cartoons, and producing some of the most venomous and deceitful stories of conspiracy? Where in the blue hell was the press then? Where were the cries of outrage then, eh? Wait, it was against a Republican, and we don't like Republicans at the mainstream press....silly me, and here I thought it was all about objectivity and reporting the facts. Where were the mentions about (we can't)moveon.org and those miserable failures like Michael Moore who came up with such outlandish theories and published them online?
Once again, further proof the mainstream media is biased and in the pocket of liberals.
