Kerry Calls Blogs The "Sub-Media"
Published March 18, 2005
Did you know that "there has been a profound and negative change in the relationship of America's media with the American people"? I didn't know that until Senator John F. Kerry illumined me via his speech to fellow Democrats on February 28, 2005 at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston.
It's so disturbing to me to know that there is this counterculture which now exists, actively undermining our heroic "mainstream" media voice, turning the hearts and minds of Americans everywhere from the true path. Woe is me!
And what exactly is this satanic influence all about? Kerry, of course, goes on to tell us:
"We learned," Kerry continued, "that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning [i.e., beating up on the president and giving Kerry himself a pass]. But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information [you mean, the mainstream media NEVER talks for entertainment purposes?]. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"
Yeah! What are we going to do about this?!
Well, I'm doing something right now... Using my "sub-media" connections to undermine the very voice of reason [John F. Kerry], trying to expose me and my fellow sub-media-ators to light of day! And in light of this revelation, I want to add that, well, I knew we were good, but I never knew we were THAT good!
I'm the king of the wooooorrrrldd!!
Or maybe not...
Really, which makes more sense to you, that the "sub-media" aka, blogs, talk radio, the Internet, and conservative media in general, are out-performing the mainstream media, or that the mainstream media right now is performing poorly?
I do think that new media has been very effective in influencing Americans, but that is mainly because new media and Americans in general are in greater agreement on the issues. At the same time, the mainstream media, has been losing touch with Americans, increasingly pushing its own agenda.
In my opinion, there are two main reasons why the MSM is hurting right now:
1) MSM companies care more about what they think than what we think.
2) After decades of unchallenged market dominance, the MSM has grown sloppy and unprofessional.
The fact is, there's plenty of "low hanging fruit," as they say, when it comes to attacking the MSM. While not true in all cases, the MSM generally comes off as arrogant, self-serving, elitist, and out of touch.
In a way, you could say that the MSM has gone counter-culture. Their views just don't reflect the views of most Americans, and some in the MSM, such as Dan Rather, are all too willing to allow their personal views and beliefs to influence the type and quality of news they report.
- Kerry Calls Blogs The "Sub-Media"
- Published: March 18, 2005
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: David Flanagan
- David Flanagan's BC Writer page
- David Flanagan's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Well then I call Kerry a sub-candidate. Sorry, couldn't resist.
He could have / should have been a stronger candidate, yes. To think of the number of votes he got as the inconsistent candidate he was is upsetting to any Dem out there... think of what a strong campaign could have done.
honestly, I don't think he ran that bad a campaign, he had just about tied it up until that bin Laden tape about five days before the election
Yeah, exactly. I was just thinking earlier that he ran less a bad campaign and more an inconsistent one.
I think he would have won had he found an early message and hammered it home for months.
David's sloppy journalism is exactly why Kerry and others consider blogs sub media. His title implies a quote from Kerry that doesn't exist, from what I see.
Matthew,
Just read the quote in my post, you'll see that he uses the word "sub-media" there. Or even just follow the link back to the article where I found the quote.
As for what Senator Kerry meant by "sub-media," that is open to debate because he never really goes on to define what he means. With that said, I find it very hard to believe that Kerry could leave blogs out of this definition, especially when it was the Blogosphere that put the Swiftboat Vet ads on the map and the blogs who held Kerry accountable for his "seared" but phony memory of being in Saigon waters on Christmas Eve.
Finally, in the final months of the campaign, the mainstream media steadily pounded President Bush any way they could. Every day, negativity filled the airwaves, but never a negative word about the Senator.
The whole ridiculous story of Al Qaqeeq, which the NY Time aired days before the election, for example. The NYT published no less than 16 articles on that story before the election... but not a single story afterwards. So, what, the whole problem was fixed after the election?
Just one example of many attempts made by the MSM to assist the candidate they so enthusiastically endorsed. I say that all that free help was worth at least 5 points for the Senator; yet the guy still could not pull it off. Sad.
Thanks,
David
From here:
Media Pushing Votes Kerry's Way
The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz: "You've said on the program Inside Washington that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as 'young and dynamic and optimistic,' that that's worth maybe 15 points."
Newsweek's Evan Thomas: "Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. But I do think that, I do think that the mainstream press, I'm not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don't think it's worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say."
Kurtz: "Is it worth five points?"
Thomas: "Maybe, maybe."
- Exchange on CNN's Reliable Sources, October 17.
Matthew Egan: "David's sloppy journalism is exactly why Kerry and others consider blogs sub media. His title implies a quote from Kerry that doesn't exist, from what I see."
Perhaps the problem liberals have is an inability to actually read, since that specific term is used right there in the first paragraph of the Kerry quote. Perhaps reading the first quarter of the article was too challenging for you?
Good exploration of the subject, btw David.
Dave
Mmmmmm, "The Sub-Media", I assume this means we get to eat Sub Sandwich's?
It makes me hungary just to think of it, maybe blogging should become the "Pizza-Media"? Mmmmmmm, Pizza.
Does anyone know a quick and relatively painless way to cut off your finger just past the first knuckle? I'm looking to cash in on some Aflac money...
The use of the prefix 'sub-' is interesting. It makes me think of words like subversive, subterranean, subterfuge. Which have interesting inferences. They can be 'alternative', or 'independent', or they can infer 'undermining' or other anti-authority. Depending which way you flip. Or flop!!
As someone else pointed out, Kerry didn't fully explain what he meant, so it's difficult to know what take he has on it. Typical Kerry as far as my experience of his political ability goes. The general consensus over here in Yearp about his campaign was that he was unable to develop a strong message, never mind stay on message.
It appears to me that David's response then is a big old middle finger to Kerry and a quite appropriate demand that politicians and MSM should be more in touch with the citizenry of the state they serve.
Again, I could read this response in a number of ways, as being defensive, independently-minded, or pure ornery. All in the best spirit of blogging.
Then I read further, and I'm starting to get a sense (interesting how much blog-reading is intuitive) that David is politically opposed to Kerry anyway. So to what extent is David actually engaging with Kerry's statement and to what extent is he just having a go at him to drive his own agenda?
It appears to me that, with one leap, our hero has succumbed to the current driving force of MSM in the States (well the bit I read anyway.) Which is partisanship.
Although politicians should be in the business of listening to their constituents, they should also do what's right for society in general and not just the bit that funds them, or shouts the loudest, or has a syndicated radio show with a large listenership, or runs the best ads.
It seems to this girl that the huge pressure on everyone in the States to pass some SAT of where they stand on a list of ideas or policies before they can have an opinion on anything is destroying intellectual debate.
David mentions the notion of competing in a marketplace of ideas. How true. How terrifying.
The development of this marketplace has resulted in everyone in the US media waving their agendas at everyone else, to the detriment of good politics. (Which in my book is problem solving that leads to a better society.)
Here's a question. Has increased partisanship and polarity in America led to an explosion in blogging as everyone tries to get their voices heard, or is it the other way round? Has the explosion of blogging redefined the notion of dialogue?
Although I enjoy the thrust and parry of the debate on BlogCritics, I often feel I'm in the blogging equivalent of the Council of Elrond.... the bit where everyone is shouting at everyone else.
Flag-waving, agenda-waving, issue-waving, all great fun I'm sure, but unfortunately I don't see a lot of consensus-building about the future direction of a completely polarised superpower.
Where the hell is Frodo, guys, who's going to take the ring to Mordor? :-)
Dave--do you think before composing responses? My contention above is that blogs and submedia were never said together, not that submedia was never said. David is making an inference, not stating a fact.
Dave--Please cite the specific quote where Kerry calls blogs "the submedia"?
Flanagan himself admits,
"As for what Senator Kerry meant by "sub-media," that is open to debate because he never really goes on to define what he means. With that said, I find it very hard to believe that Kerry could leave blogs out of this definition, especially when it was the Blogosphere that put the Swiftboat Vet ads on the map and the blogs who held Kerry accountable for his "seared" but phony memory of being in Saigon waters on Christmas Eve."
So, Dave--Where is the fucking quote where he juxtaposes blog and submedia?
Go get your shine box.
Matt. Kerry didn't specify any single thing as the sub-media, but his general description could certainly include blogs. Do you honestly believe that blogs wouldn't fall into the category of sub-media?
You said that Kerry's quote about the sub-media didn't exist, NOT that he didn't say that blogs were part of the sub-media. The former is untrue, the latter is true. If you don't want to be called out on your imprecise wording, say what you actually mean.
Dave
Matt - I won't comment on your comment as I'm way past done with this topic, but I must call out your use of "shine box" as absolutely brilliant.
More shine box, I say!
(And don't forget to lock the door!)
Well, it was lost on me because I don't even know WTH he was talking about with his 'shine box' comment. Does it have something to do with shining shoes?
Dave
"You said that Kerry's quote about the sub-media didn't exist, NOT that he didn't say that blogs were part of the sub-media."
Really? Where? I said:
"His (meaning Flanagan)title (which was "Kerry calls blogs a submedia")implies a quote from Kerry that doesn't exist, from what I see. What part of "His title implies a quote that does not exist." His title says that Kerry called Blogs the submedia! Kerry never said that. I never said Kerry didn't talk about the submedia at all.
So I was right in my initial assertion, which was, "Flanagan is implying a quote about blogs being the submedia". That quote doesn't exist. You can infer it, but you cannot prove it.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/26944)
I don't agree with your takeaway from this speech, David. It's obvious that he's referring to the Swift Boat ads and the conservative media machine that kept the story chugging all summer long.
I think it's fair to ask questions about how to cut through the clutter/spin/falsehoods/accusations that the media world can often get locked into, particularly with regard to the world of politics.