Blogotional

We remodeled the house a couple of years ago. That's hard work, particularly if you are trying to save some bucks with some sweat equity. But one part always went faster, easier, and gave better results than expected every time -- DEMOLITION. And what a sense of accomplishment! It only took a couple of hours to tear my kitchen down to bare walls and haul the waste to the dump. It was a thing of beauty. Took two more months to get it back together, but the demolition was fantastic. Enormous changes after a short time, done well. I was never so happy as I was on demolition day. The new kitchen took so long, and required so much effort, that its completion was marked more by relief than accomplishment. It was several months before I could look at it and really feel like I had accomplished something.

A common complaint about legacy media is that they are always looking for the next Watergate -- the next big scandal -- the next place where "they can really have an impact." All of us have blogged about it, usually in complaint. But now I am wondering about us -- do we have the same "bloodlust?"

Blogging has come a long way in a short time. "Christmas in Cambodia" -- "Swift Boats" -- "Rathergate" We all know the names, many of us started blogging because it seemed like fun to be a part of that. In each of these cases, blogging was an effective tool for circulating true information in an approriate context, information that might otherwise not have been circulated. Each case had major impact, and generated a great sense of accomplish.

Now, while they were happening the legacy media fought back against the rising tide of blogging by talking about the lack of professionalism, the line between gossip and reporting, the hysteria of the masses, the ability of the blogosphere to make mountains out of molehills.

The response to this legacy media argument was generally to divide the frontline bloggers like The Corner, Hewitt, Instapundit, Powerline...from the rabble in "the tail."

But let us consdier now L'Afaire 'd Miers. With the possible exception of The Corner (the "Caligula's horse" crack really did cross a line) the frontline bloggers disagreed, but attempted to stay within the bounds of generally acceptable discourse. But each little scrap and bit of information that came out really did echo throughout the blogosphere until it became in appearance far more significant and far more important that it really was.

Ask yourself this, why is there so much being written in an effort to make sure that what happened is not labelled "borking?" Why are so many defending what happened if they believe thier actions were so just? I have seen post after post after post defending what happened, stating that it was reasonable and just and within the bounds of civil discourse. The only accusations to the contrary have come from Hewitt (well maybe me and Hedgehog too, but I don't really count, and Lowell is just now arriving at the frontlines) and as a lone voice, would it not be simpler just to ignore him?

Blogging is about spreading information and forming ideas. Those things have consequences, but if we start with the consequences and then move to the information and ideas, we have a problem. Then we are in the same place we so often accuse the legacy media of being. Then we want to exercise our power as bloggers for its own sake. Just remember, that power only lasts so long as we do the primary funtion properly. That power only lasts when the information and ideas are accurate and in proper context.

Demolition brings a great sense of accomplishment, and it is immediate, but all you are left with is an empty room. Building something is lot harder, but given time and perspective, the accomplishment is so much greater.

UPDATE: Turns out I was not alon in thinking along these lines. This morning's OpinionJournal has a John Fund piece on the same topic.

One that deserves study is how a lightning-fast news cycle, a flat-footed defense and the growth of new media such as talk radio and blogs sank Ms. Miers's chances even before the megabuck special-interest groups could unload their first TV ad. Ms. Miers herself has told friends that she was astonished at how the Internet became a conveyor belt for skeptical mainstream media reports on her in addition to helping drive the debate.

Although as one of the chief anti-Miers pundits, Fund also tries to defend himself against the "borking" charge, something I don't think holds water given his grand assertions of huge revelations to come that turned out to be minor lunch speeches. Nonetheless, he concludes well

"The moral hazard of the new media is clear," says columnist Jim Pinkerton, an aide to President George H.W. Bush. "They can turn any discussion into a donnybrook, and any nomination into Armageddon." Such a development isn't inevitable--witness the civilized debate over John Roberts's appointment. But President Bush will have to consider that risk in picking a new nominee for the high court, just as Democratic senators will have to weigh how much they respond to Internet sites pressuring them to mount a filibuster against that nominee.

You're right John, but the Internet also needs to be asking itself what's really important and what's not. The last thing right-wing blogging should be is just refried MoveOn or Kos.