I occasionally check out some of the conservative (more accurately, anti-Daschle) blogs in South Dakota. (I won’t provide links. If you want can’t live without knowing, e-mail me.) Lately, it seems at least three love staring at each other’s navel.
First “X” erupts in indignation about some nefarious thing Tom Daschle, Stephanie Herseth or Dave Kranz (South Dakota’s poster child for the “liberal media”) did that threatens the very foundations of American democracy. (Or posts some item further proving John Thune and Larry Diedrich are, like the liar-in-chief, perfect.) Then “Y” jumps in saying, “Hey, look at what X posted! It shows how Daschle/Herseth/Kranz is ruining America. And look at this other unquestionably illegal/unethical thing they did.” “Z” then posts, pointing out the excellent work by X and Y documenting the threat Daschle/Herseth/Kranz pose to freedom, justice, western civilization and The American Way. X, of course, then has to point out that Y and Z noticed what he said and comment on their insightful analysis.
Now all bloggers cite or refer to other blogs they read. That isn’t the issue. What gets me is that so much of what’s been appearing on these rabid dog blogs lately is nothing more than “I saw what you posted, now say something about what I posted.” The main variation seems to be who starts the circle jerk.
And just to ensure the pot calls the kettle black, I recommend George Packer’s column at Mother Jones on all the “meta-comment by very bright young men who never leave their rooms.” My guess is that is probably a dead-on description of these bloggers (and maybe many of the liberal bloggers I read). You simply can’t post as much they do if you’ve got a real life to live. I, in contrast, probably don’t meet any of the very bright, young or never leaving my room criteria.