Pulling on Dave Winer’s open thread…
I like that phrase out of Sigmund Freud: “… the narcissism of small differences.” Meaning: we have (and enjoy!) the fiercest arguments with the people we most nearly agree with on everything. So I toss my carrots into the opinion stew here with the feeling that we are all pretty close on the major points. To wit: that the Dean campaign (the Clark draft, too) gave us all an exciting glimpse of a different sort of democracy–and the possibility (this year, next time and/or indefinitely into the future) is still around. The Dean phenomenon in politics, after all, was always just the visible tip of an Internet iceberg that is unquestionably transforming commerce, corporate communications, music distribution, Iranian politics, family letters home, prime-time television habits, airline ticketing and a thousand other things. And the iceberg is still moving glacially (but fast!) over the society. I think most of us agree that we like this architecture of Internet politics–its individuality and its community, its accessibility and speed and all those other good things. None of it was crushed with Dean in New Hampshire. My own particular take–and I sense lots of agreement even here–it that Big Media came out of its cave to beat Dean over the head with Kerry, and that that this is a Problem. This was not critical journalism at work, this was an industrial offensive from a declining sector of the information and intelligence business, a corporatized, overconcentrated, underventilated giant that feels itself threatened. The newsmag headlines, the network cliches about “anger,” the emptiness of the “electability” standard (which newsmags giveth and taketh away, without ever having to show evidence) and that completely mindless, truly Goebbels-esque repetition of the scream tape–all the manipulated frenzy of the last three weeks smacked of a fiercely anti-democratic bullying that I find personally, professionally and publicly offensive. I confess some naivete here. I am surprised the old devils tried it; I am surprised that they got away with it. I bought the spirit of Larry Lessig‘s complaint a month ago: “Our pathology is that we’ve become such passive political creatures that we respond to these broadcast manipulations in a way that’s totally predictable.” And I bought into Larry’s hope that something had changed in the course of 2003, that it wouldn’t happen the same old way in 2004. So we live and learn. But the main thing we’re learning is that, as Jay Rosen says, “we have the tools.” They are democratizing the world of information and opinion–yes, of journalism, whether the decrepit kings of the decaying castle like it or not. The Net is still there, and it’s still the happiest, most constructive place to be having this good conversation about real politics. The rest of my two bits is here. I’m tickled to be in on this discussion. Thanks to all, Chris Lydon
{ 21 } Comments
thank you
Chris,
For an alternative analysis, check out the posting “The Art of Winning” at http://www.greaterdemocracy.org
The fact of the matter is that Dean mismanaged:
1: his branding efforts — See Rayne’s comment
2: his choice of networks, or failure to use and/both
3: his money
Dean owns these mistakes, not the media.
To do better in the future, as in the general election, it will be more helpful to look at the root causes and not misdirect frustration, aggravation and disappointment at “The Media”.
The choice is to learn or to get stuck in the blogochamber.
Regards, Jock
By-and-large, I agree with Jock Gill and Rayne. In the end, Howard Dean’s greatest nemesis was Howard Dean, not the media. The reality is that politicians have governed through relationships with media for a long time now. Candidates who are not media-savvy drop by the wayside. As is said in social science, it constitutes a necessary but not sufficient condition for successful governance. So, to “blame” the media, solely, is to ignore the reality that a candidate needs to attend to different kinds of media relations – conventional and emerging forms (such as these blogs, which are, after all, a media product, albeit of a different format and audience, to date). If a candidate cannot effectively negotiate through the media morass, how will s/he be able to govern.
The inability to shape media and media representations, combined with the financial mismanagement of the campaign, shows a kind of (relative) practical inability to work outside the blogosphere. For while the Deaniacs may have the politically correct positions, questions about tactical and strategic judgments raise serious questions about the ability to govern, not a relatively small, rural and homogenized state such as Vermont, but a complex, polylingual, polycultural country such as ours.
The media caught his hoarse rally cry and it was manipulated into heavier rotation than Janet Jackson’s grandmother’s bosom falling out of her outfit during the Superbowl. I agree with most of the posts, but you have to admit the media wouldn’t let that moment of raspiness evaporate.
thank you
Nice one, but what about der weg ? anywya, congrats from me.
Very nice blog. It is very helpful. http://www.bignews.com
Craftsman Tool
Very nice and informative website.
Very nice website with a lot of informative response from members
Your site is very interesting. I think so my is also interesting, you can see it here Cheapest car insurance
Nice interview, great job
Great post, thanks for sharing, it is very good for me. Mercado de Divisas
In my “Political Observation” above, I’d like to clarify: when I say the “True Believers” are concentrating on picking the “best candidate”, I really should have said “the candidate who would make the best president, regardless of electability.”
I like that phrase out of Sigmund Freud: “… the narcissism of small differences.” Meaning: we have (and enjoy!) the fiercest arguments with the people we most nearly agree with on everything. So I toss my carrots into the opinion stew here with the feeling that we are all pretty close on the major points. To wit: that the Dean campaign (the Clark draft, too) gave us all an exciting glimpse of a different sort of democracy–and the possibility (this year, next time and/or indefinitely into the future) is still around. The Dean phenomenon in politics, after all, was always just the visible tip of an Internet iceberg that is unquestionably transforming commerce, corporate communications, music distribution, Iranian politics, family letters home, prime-time television habits, airline ticketing and a thousand other things. And the iceberg is still moving glacially (but fast!) over the society. I think most of us agree that we like this architecture of Internet politics–its individuality and its community, its accessibility and speed and all those other good things. None of it was crushed with Dean in New Hampshire. My own particular take–and I sense lots of agreement even here–it that Big Media came out of its cave to beat Dean over the head with Kerry, and that that this is a Problem. This was not critical journalism at work, this was an industrial offensive from a declining sector of the information and intelligence business, a corporatized, overconcentrated, underventilated giant that feels itself threatened. The newsmag headlines, the network cliches about “anger,” the emptiness of the “electability” standard (which newsmags giveth and taketh away, without ever having to show evidence) and that completely mindless, truly Goebbels-esque repetition of the scream tape–all the manipulated frenzy of the last three weeks smacked of a fiercely anti-democratic bullying that I find personally, professionally and publicly offensive. I confess some naivete here. I am surprised the old devils tried it; I am surprised that they got away with it. I bought the spirit of Larry Lessig‘s complaint a month ago: “Our pathology is that we’ve become such passive political creatures that we respond to these broadcast manipulations in a way that’s totally predictable.” And I bought into Larry’s hope that something had changed in the course of 2003, that it wouldn’t happen the same old way in 2004. So we live and learn. But the main thing we’re learning is that, as Jay Rosen says, “we have the tools.” They are democratizing the world of information and opinion–yes, of journalism, whether the decrepit kings of the decaying castle like it or not. The Net is still there, and it’s still the happiest, most constructive place to be having this good conversation about real politics. The rest of my two bits is here. I’m tickled to be in on this discussion. Thanks to all, Chris Lydon
“… the narcissism of small differences.” S. Freud, and a Tarantino film maker heroe.
Do you remember Pulp Fiction “smal differences”
Just read the book. Thanks!
me and a co-worker were just talking about this exact subject!
I have been trying to find similar info for a long time….thank you!
Thank you for your informative website, it has really helped me.
Thank you for the valuable website, this information has been very helpful to me.