« Friday Festival Of Blog Bits | Main | Bloggers React To Pulitzer Announcement »

Bill Frist, Howard Dean And One Lazy Blogger

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, is making a concerted push to be an innovator in the realm of political technology.

Last week, the Tennessee Republican launched his own podcasts at the Web site for VOLPAC, his political action committee. "In these podcasts, I'll be giving unscripted and unfiltered updates from Washington, D.C., about legislation in the Senate and from across America as I campaign with conservative candidates," Frist wrote. "We already have five of these updates on the site now."

Frist also is one of Congress' early and more prolific bloggers, and he has granted exclusive podcasts to Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, who lives in Tennessee.

Today, Frist added another element to his tech forays: iFrist Volunteers. "If Republicans are going to continue to lead America forward," Frist wrote at his blog, "we need to do a better job communicating with the Republican grassroots. ... IFrist volunteers can sign petitions, complete surveys, endorse candidates, spread the word and help build support for the Republican agenda by encouraging their friends, family and co-workers to participate."

All of the activity prompted Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza to wonder aloud whether Frist is the "Howard Dean of the GOP" -- a reference to the Democratic presidential candidate who caused the biggest blogospheric and online stir in 2004. Cillizza said Frist "appears to be the candidate most closely copying the Internet blueprint of Dean."

Scott Shields of MyDD, one of the blogs that rose to prominence during the Dean campaign, scoffed at the notion that Frist is anything like Dean. In a fundamentally lazy statement, he stereotyped most journalists as being "fundamentally lazy," with Cillizza's "pretty much mindless piece" as the only evidence to support his sweeping generalization.

Shields' point about the differences between Frist and Dean is fair enough. "Dean established himself as a credible political figure as the governor of a small state and likely wouldn't have attained the level of national notoriety he did without the progressive netroots behind him," Shields wrote. "In contrast, Senator Frist is the majority leader of the United States Senate. He's already in the national spotlight."

But Shields' slap at journalists is both ridiculous and wrong. It's kind of like a certain journalist who infamously dismissed all bloggers as pajama-clad losers.

UPDATE: Shields apparently thinks he hurt my feelings with his comment about lazy journalists. That's just as ridiculous and wrong as his comment about journalists. Shields didn't call me lazy, so why would my feelings be hurt.

I've also known and worked with a few lazy journalists in my day and have no problem believing they exist. Plus I have criticized my journalistic colleagues for their shortcomings, especially their sweeping generalizations about bloggers, so I firmly believe that all of us, including me, can improve the work we do.

But Shields' attack on "most" journalists based on a single blog posting written by one of them -- and a blog posting that arguably offers some worthwhile insight -- is baseless. It was driven by his own affinity for Dean and his desire not to have his political hero associated with a leading Republican.

Shields may well be right that Bill Frist is no Howard Dean. He certainly supported that view with more evidence and insight than his potshot at journalists. But his take on journalists is quite wrong. As I said, most of us are no more lazy than most bloggers are pajama-clad losers.

UPDATE II: This response from Shields also is misleading: "Take all of the journalists in the world -- every small-town AM radio reporter, every local coupon-clipper stringer, etc. -- and I promise you will find that most are not doing Seymour Hersh-level journalism." He's probably right on that score. But his initial entry clearly stated that he was referring to journalists (like Cillizza) who do their work in the political arena.

UPDATE III: Daily Kos also reacted to Cillizza's comparison of Frist to Dean, minus the poke at journalists. The conclusion: "Where Dean ... and others use the Internet as a means of citizen empowerment, Frist and others use it as a means of retaining power themselves."

Posted by | 12:07 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://amcblog.nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/581

Comments

Saying it's like the blogger remark, I think, is silly. Shields didn't say anything about all journalists. He said most. The word "most" was used to AVOID a generalization.

You can disagree with that. You can ask him to support the claim. But I don't think you can seriously claim this is a "sweeping generalization."

Had he said "all journalists," I'd agree with you.

Mike | 04.18.06 12:05 AM

Most people are somewehat lazy if they can be. There's no reason to imagine journalists are any different. In my dealings with journalists it's been fairly rare that they hadn't already written the story in their heads before they talked to me. And, more than that, it was usually clear that anything I said which didn't support their pre-determined narrative would be ignored. Who knows, maybe they're incredibly overworked and such things are a consequence of that. But if that's so "lazy" and "overworked" are not actually in contradiction.

Atrios | 04.18.06 12:20 AM

"But Shields' attack on "most" journalists based on a single blog posting written by one of them -- and a blog posting that arguably offers some worthwhile insight -- is baseless."

This is statement is either lazy or inaccurate; take your pick. This isn't the first time Shields read web posting or a newspaper article. He stated quite clearly that this "attack" was based on a life in music and politics.

ZamboniGuy | 04.18.06 11:47 AM

This piece by Glover is a little too "I know you are but what am I" for my taste.

Mike | 04.18.06 12:10 PM

Just caught that you updated the story on my vicious attack on all journalists. Want to talk about misleading?

"...his initial entry clearly stated that he was referring to journalists (like Cillizza) who do their work in the political arena."

I specifically made the point that this is a lesson I learned as a musician, but have found also applies to politics. Perhaps I didn't make it clear that I think it applies to journalists in all fields, but it's pretty obvious that I'm not just talking about those "who do their work in the political arena." You really need to lighten up, man.

Scott Shields | 04.19.06 01:43 PM

Scott: Your first entry voiced dismay at learning that political journalists are as "lazy" as rock writers. You're response to my entry expanded the comparison to "every small-town AM radio reporter, every local coupon-clipper stringer." But the overall tenor of your post was an attack on political journalists in general.

Besides, do you really think small-town reporters and stringers for coupon clippers should aspire to be investigative reporters like Seymour Hersh? That seems like a pretty high standard for getting out of the "lazy reporter" category. How ironic, then, to hear you say that I need to lighten up.

Danny | 04.19.06 02:05 PM

What would be a fair way to grade political journalists? Here's my first cut at trying to come up with a way to do that:

* Do they attempt to drill down to the real issues, or settle for partisan talking points?

* Do they do the hard work to find objective truth when it exists?

* Are they fair to both sides? This, too, requires significant effort.

* Do they focus on what matters most, even if those issues are difficult to understand and write about clearly? Or do they settle for what's easiest to cover, even if its long-term significance is minimal?

* Do they respect the intelligence of their readers?

* In sum, to what extent do they help their readers function as informed, active citizens?

These are only partially measures of laziness. As atrios notes it, they could also be measures of overwork and deadline pressure. They could also be measures of indifference, ignorance, cynicism, raw ambition, or sheer stupidity. But nevertheless, they measure something important.

Now, having established these rough measures, I'm curious just how good a job you think the community of political journalists does. Obviously there are huge differences across media, across individual publications and types of publications, and of course, from one journalist to another. That can't be addressed in a blog post: it requires a dissertation, or the resources of someone like Media Matters on the left or Accuracy in Media on the right.

But I encounter an awful lot of political coverage. I've been a local newspaper reporter. I've also been a political activist, and even at a low level, a candidate. From what I see, I'd give today's print press something between a C and a gentleman's C+. I'd give the electronic media a D at best, arguably a D-minus. (As just one example, it is truly stunning and appalling what you will not learn if you watch CNN.)

Mr. Glover, what say you?

Bill Camarda | 04.19.06 08:15 PM

Post a Comment