Of Blogs & Debunking Rumors About Ideological Adversaries
In his latest post, my nephew makes a great point about some blogs don’t lose credibility even when in attempting to dig up dirt on a political figure, their dirt is just that, accusations or insinuations without any basis in reality.
What develops is a situation similar to that of the Boy Who Cried Wolf where a series of false reports about a candidate leads to people discounting other damaging, but true stories. Not just that, it allows the candidate to compare the true story to the false one, suggesting it’s just an underhanded attempt to discredit him.
As Mitchell puts it:
My point is that with all this misinformation about Obama, it is hard to believe much of what comes out about him and most of what comes out about him is on the internet. The mainstream media is the guardian of the truth. If they lie, they have to stand up and admit their mistake. If a blog lies, they will just continue to lie the next day because there isn’t any accountability. They have a small audience that agrees with them, so no one is going to stop reading them.
I don’t know that I agree entirely with him that there’s no accountability. Other bloggers may call their accounts into question. And the blogger may further pigeonhole himself. But, Mitchell’s definitely onto something in the final sentence from the passage above. Bloggers may lose out in gaining a broader audience, but will retain the ideological partisans who religiously read their posts.
Just look at Andrew Sullivan’s fulminations on the McCain and cross story. Doubt this dishonest line of attack will cost him many of his readers on the left.
But, even some bloggers with strong convictions will take the time to debunk bogus stories which attempt to put their ideological adversaries in a bad light. Glenn Reynolds notes how “right-leaning blogs” have been doing just that when rumors about presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama start to surface.
I wonder if any liberal bloggers have been making a similar effort to debunk rumors which put the presumptive Republican nominee’s war record in a bad light. Or which question his recollection of that good man’s experiences while incarcerated.
8 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
it was a very good post. takes spin and exposes it for what it is.
Comment by michael — August 21, 2008 @ 11:25 pm - August 21, 2008
Oh, please. It won’t.
And now a word about the allegedly “false”, allegedly “debunked”, Obama-Muslim “rumors”.
- Fact: Obama’s father was a Muslim.
- Fact: Under Muslim law, if you father is a Muslim, so are you. (Different from Jewish law which relies on the mother.)
- Fact: Under Muslim law, the worst thing you can be is a Muslim apostate: someone who has converted *away* from Islam.
- Fact: Obama converted (we are told over and over – Ahem) away from Islam.
Conclusion: Under Muslim law, and accepting Obama’s account of his faith at face value, he is an awful creature, the most dangerous and offensive (to Muslims) President that we could elect. Far more than Bush.
Don’t believe me? It was in the New York Times. Obama *IS* a Muslim – that is, an apostate Muslim – *in the eyes of Muslims*. That’s the kernel of truth everyone keeps getting wrong, on both sides of the political spectrum.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 22, 2008 @ 2:21 am - August 22, 2008
Slight apology – My eyes had read the GPW quote as “DoubtLESS [Sullivan's] dishonest line of attack will cost him…” Just realized that GPW probably meant “I doubt [Sullivan's] dishonest line of attack will cost him…”, the opposite sense and the sense I would agree with.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 22, 2008 @ 2:24 am - August 22, 2008
First off, IF Obama is a Muslim, who cares? Religion shouldn’t matter.
That said, we shouldn’t be using Muslim law in America to define who is Muslim.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — August 22, 2008 @ 9:20 am - August 22, 2008
Religion is a personal belief, so it shouldn’t be cast upon you just because of what religion your parents are, thereby granting you a religion you may or may not agree with.
As it is, Obama agrees with the radical belief of Black Seperatism. Now, that’s an issue.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — August 22, 2008 @ 9:23 am - August 22, 2008
That is a very American attitude. And thus, one I agree with heartily.
My #3 just states facts. Approximately 1.X billion people in the world are going to view Obama as an apostate Muslim. (Unless, of course, he buys their goodwill by appeasing them.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 22, 2008 @ 10:24 am - August 22, 2008
Mitchell, right on. In America a person can choose to leave a religion – even if the religion feels it owns you for life.
You second comment was spot on as well, I don’t think Obama is a true member of any religious group. He chose the most radical liberation theology church he could find. It was all done for political purposes.
If he were really a Christian who was unaware for 20 years about the nature of his Church, you’d think that upon leaving that Church, he’s choose another.
Haven’t heard anything yet about his newest religious home. Because he doesn’t have any. I know he’s busy running for president, he doesn’t have the time. Though truth be told, it is meaningless to him. The whole religious belief issue.
Comment by Leah — August 22, 2008 @ 11:52 am - August 22, 2008
There’s some of that going on on the right as well. Speculation over who McCain is going to pick for VP is great, but it’s not hard to find people who are foaming at the mouth furious about a VP pick that hasn’t happened yet, based on nothing more than speculation.
That’s not rational. That’s insane.
I’ve taken a break from reading the Corner until after next Friday, just because every other day, KLo is having another conniption fit over a pick that hasn’t happened yet.
Comment by rightwingprof — August 22, 2008 @ 12:10 pm - August 22, 2008