all hail the new media!
although more and more questions as to their authenticity are surfacing, we don't yet know the cbs docs are fake. the late supposed author's wife, son, and a peer who served with him all question the documents, and an independent forensics expert (i.e., one not in the employ of cbs) describes herself as being "virtually certain" the documents are forgeries.
could this be the end of dan rather?
in a sense, it already is. regardless of whether or not the documents are proven fraudulent or rather ends up deservedly sacked (consistently lousy ratings, consistently biased reporting) cbs, along with nbc, abc, and the rest of the establishment media are going the way of the dodo.
in less than thirty days, we've seen two major news cycles driven entirely by the new media--bloggers, internet forum denizens, talk radio, and so forth. first there was the swift boat thing. the new media took a story virtually ignored by their mainstream counterparts and shoved it to the forefront of the american psyche by force of will alone. of particular note is kerry's fictional Christmas in cambodia holiday show with special guest star mark hamill and a surprise appearance by chewbacca, now debunked and recanted courtesy of what was, at the time, a fledgling 527 with a paltry $500,000 in funds, a few commercials, and a website. now we have the amazing disappearing/reappearing texas ANG smoking gun memos, delivered on 60 minutes by dan rather personally as proof of bush's dereliction of duty. it took all of five minutes for the bloggosphere to start poking holes in The Man's version, five minutes after that it was on drudge, and, lo and behold, today it's all over the WaPo and the AP. even the new york times has a story on it although, true to form, the old grey lady buries it on page 17 and this despite the fact that a story by the exact same reporters on the exact same memos--this one heralding the 60 minutes report rather than questioning it--graced the front page one day prior.
more and more i'm hearing members of the old guard decrying the decline of journalistic standards. "it's the internet," they say. "it's matt drudge and the bloggers. anyone with a website can say anything they want and there's no truth, no accountability, no standards. it's not like the old days."
thank God for that.
the establishment media is dying, of that you can be sure. their ratings are plummeting, and with them goes whatever vestiges of influence they have managed to cling to, but that isn't the disease itself, it's only a symptom. listen to the contempt the new media is dealt at the hands of the old. listen to the scorn. they hate having to cover this stuff--hate every minute of it. they hate being drug around by a bunch of upstarts. but more than anything, they hate not being the ones who get to dictate to the american people what they are going to think about, and how they should think about it. that's the real problem. see, if there was any truth or standards or accountability in the old media, there would be no need of the new.
the old will continue to see the new as the source of all their problems and thus they will continue to die. until, that is, they realize that the new media exists not as a problem, but as the solution to a problem that the establishment media itself created.
not that locdog would mind if they didn't, of course
question for kerry and dems in general
are you committed to victory in iraq?
not exit strategies, not six more months and we're out, not i promise that in my first term i'll bring all the boys home.
see, i'm a reasonably well-informed person. i follow the news. i read the papers. but if somebody walked up to me on the street and said
"locdog, reasonably well-informed person that you are, is john kerry, in your opinion, committed to victory in iraq?"
i would be unable to answer. not because i don't like john kerry and think he'd make a lousy president. it's more like the other way around. i'm convinced kerry will make a lousy president because i don't know how to answer that simple question. i heard charles krauthammer say it best just last night: "on the most serious issue of our day, he's no longer a serious candidate."
what really scares me--scares me--about you democrats is that you, half of our country, aren't serious either. i've got news for you all. this election is not, should not be, cannot be about the economy, stupid, jobs, health care, social security, or welfare for crack-addicted transvestite former pro wrestlers because none of that stuff matters a hill of beans if we don't win in iraq. the people we are fighting against are out to end our civilization. but i fear that if september 11th didn't teach you that we cannot peacefully coexist with terror, nothing will.
i know you people never thought this war was a good idea, but it really doesn't matter. if we don't win this thing now, we are going to reap the whirlwind. big time.
kerry seems to be inching closer and closer to howard dean, pandering to his lunatic constituency--i mean that, by the way, you people are insane--rather than leading them. you know what i as an american citizen want from john kerry more than anything else? i want him to stand up and say that he's going to win the war in iraq. instead he wants to babble about what a lousy job bush has done and how he'd do it all different and better, cheap shots from an empty suit content to gloat on the past and apparently unconcerned with the future--just like his fans.
the idea of john kerry winning this election really scares me. i don't know what he'll do. my hunch is that, if push came to shove, he'd back down and pull us out before the job was done. you know why? democratic jubilation over the 1000th death in iraq aside, 1000 dead soldiers in a year and a half of continuous combat isn't a lot of deaths. it isn't even close to a lot of deaths. in terms of the annals of warfare, it barely registers. in terms of what we lost on september 11th, it pales. i know, i know: "try telling that to the parents of those dead soldiers you heartless bastard!" i don't pretend for an instant that the overall scale of the thing can in anyway minimize the grief of even a single parent deprived of a child, nor should it. but i truly believe that if we lose, a lot more americans are going to die and they aren't going to be soldiers. and you know something? i'd be willing to bet you that most of those parents do, too.
things could get rough in this war. really, really rough. we could reach the point where the media isn't celebrating just two or three deaths a night, but two or three hundred, or two or three thousand. in world war one, 50, 60, 70 thousand men or more could die in a single battle. i don't think we're headed that way with the war on terror, but my gut tells me that this thing is going to get worse before it gets better.
will john kerry tough it out? a better, far more meaningful question is, since john kerry refuses to lead, will you the democrats let him?
locdog doubts it