June 09, 2003
VAST BLOG CONSPIRACY
The London Times on bloggers and the NYT:
Like British tabloid newspapers in hot pursuit of a wounded politician, they never gave up on their quarry.
The paper was pilloried for distorting polls on President George W Bush and for running the most doom-laden stories it could find on the war in Iraq. From the claim that Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, was against the war (his position was more nuanced) to revelations of a financial link between a columnist and Enron, the collapsed energy company, no subject was too large or too small for their notice.
Their latest target is Maureen Dowd, a star writer who jeered at Bush for claiming that Al-Qaeda was “not a problem any more” and has yet to acknowledge that she played fast and loose with his words.
The attacks on The New York Times have added to the suspicion among Democrats that internet pundits are part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” once alleged by Hillary Clinton.
Which explains why we bloggers are all so wealthy - Richard Mellon Scaife is funding us via PayPal.
UPDATE. Working links to the Times piece may be found here.
Posted by Tim Blair at June 9, 2003 11:56 AM"Reflecting on those years of governesses and formal family dinners, May commented, "I don't remember any laughter in that house.""
Isn't that what being raised in any conservative household is like?? :)
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at June 9, 2003 at 01:03 PMYes. All laughter is forbidden. Unlike, say, an environmentalist household. Those guys just don't know how to be serious!
Posted by: tim at June 9, 2003 at 01:25 PMIt's illegal to make the kind of jokes I grew up with nowadays.
Posted by: Yobbo at June 9, 2003 at 06:29 PMHey, first I find out that Saddam is giving money away after he stops. Now I find out the the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is funded! I haven't gotten a penny, dammit! I want my share or things are going to get ugly. This pretty face is not free.
Posted by: Chuck at June 9, 2003 at 11:32 PMTwo days later, I am still puzzled by the story. Is the London Times actually saying that since blogs uncovered not mere bias but blatant lying, they should be censured? Or that after several of his editors had pointed out the lies, Raines was quite right to keep promoting the liar, moving him fom position to position as editor after editor objected?
It may be that without blogs, nothing would have come of it - witness the Durant Pulitzer of many years ago, awarded despite public (but unreported, of course) admission that the stories were flat-out lies.
Zealots and followers don't need to get paid. Just happy to serve and perhaps get noticed. A few backslaps from fellow travellers and a sense of belonging ensues, which for many is the whole point.
Posted by: Glenn at June 12, 2003 at 06:29 PM