And I did notice that Hillary and her introducer tonight both took care to mention the pundits.

As to the stratification: Maybe. Maybe we need a network architecture that doesn't pick winners, because the "hubs" like Kos et cetera are so very vulnerable.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

about media, netroots, message?

cg.eye, can you explain a bit more on the Daou structure?

And Myiq, I do hope this is true, that we're going to see a repositioning / reshuffling of the blogosphere with benefits for blogs such as this one, thanks, I think, to the good, solid writing by the core bloggers.

I also think the human-sized community plays a big part. If you pop in now in the big blogs, including FDL, Shakesville, LGM, it's hard to find room.

There is still room here or at the Confluence. And let's not forget the rise of Scary Smart Anglachel!

So, no matter what the primary end result, there is room for media AND blogosphere critique in the Democratic blogs (as opposed to the A-list once-progressive blogs).

this proposal broke down how blogs can participate in shaping conventional wisdom.

"The Triangle
Looking at the political landscape, one proposition seems unambiguous: blog power on both the right and left is a function of the relationship of the netroots to the media and the political establishment. Forming a triangle of blogs, media, and the political establishment is an essential step in creating the kind of sea change we’ve seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Simply put, without the participation of the media and the political establishment, the netroots alone cannot generate the critical mass necessary to alter or create conventional wisdom. This is partly a factor of audience size, but it’s also a matter, frankly, of trust and legitimacy. Despite the astronomical growth of the netroots (see Bowers and Stoller for hard numbers), and the slow and steady encroachment of bloggers on the hallowed turf of Washington’s opinion-makers, it is still the Russerts and Broders and Gergens and Finemans, the WSJ, WaPo and NYT editorial pages, the cable nets, Stewart and Letterman and Leno, and senior elected officials, who play a pivotal role in shaping people’s political views. That is not to say that blogs can’t be the first to draw attention to an issue, as they often do, but the half-life of an online buzz can be measured in days and weeks, and even when a story has enough netroots momentum to float around for months, it will have little effect on the wider public discourse without the other sides of the triangle in place. Witness the Plame case, an obsession of left-leaning bloggers long before the media and the political establishment got on board and turned it into a political liability for Rove and Bush.

....

The power of the triangle has been demonstrated again and again: Josh Marshall and social security, Steve Clemons and the Bolton nomination (the recess appointment was emblematic of Bolton’s defeat, not his victory), rightwing bloggers and Eason Jordan, rightwing bloggers and Dick Durbin, progressive bloggers and Jeff Gannon, and so on. In each of these cases, and to varying degrees, bloggers, the media, and senior elected officials played a role in pushing a story and influencing public perceptions. To understand what happens when the online community is on its own, look no further than electronic voting. The progressive netroots has been hammering away at this for years, but the media and the political establishment is largely mute. Traction = Zero. The conventional wisdom puts it squarely in the realm of conspiracy theories.

Should we conclude, then, that the inability of bloggers on the left and right to alter or create conventional wisdom means that they have negligible political clout? If the netroots can’t change CW without the mass media and the political establishment, and if the mass media and the political establishment can change CW without the netroots (which seems undeniable), then isn’t the blog world a relatively powerless echo chamber? The answer, of course, is no.

Bloggers can exert disproportionate pressure on the media and on politicians. Reporters, pundits, and politicians read blogs, and, more importantly, they care what bloggers say about them because they know other reporters, pundits, and politicians are reading the same blogs. It’s a virtuous circle for the netroots and a source of political power. The netroots can also bring the force of sheer numbers to bear on a non-compliant politician, reporter, or media outlet. Nobody wants a flood of complaints from thousands of angry activists. And further, bloggers can raise money, fact-check, and help break stories and/or keep them in circulation long enough for the media and political establishment to pick them up."

Remember when the progressive blogs were going to be the 5th power that would counterbalance the collusion between corporate powers and the media, and where the big bloggers were all over “the Village” as the symbiosis between the DC political corps and Big Media?

Digby had a post about this. I was incredulous that hacks like Mark Halpern were being quoted approvingly.

and has been since January:

Free and open discourse is problematic whenever there is censorship, but an unruly mob can censor speech just as thoroughly as a government or site administrator.

Obama's supporters are an unruly mob, not all but a large percentage. Nothing in their minds topples their beliefs in the promised one. From the pundits down to the lowest college student, they have stifled the debate and allowed an emiently unqualified person to be a stone's throw from the nomination.

Owner of Fox News and NY Post may endorse Democratic candidate over McCain.

Elizabeth Murdoch hosts Barack Obama fundraiser

I have long suspected Obama of being an American Tony Blair.

a bit off thread, but "It is beginning to look like the main reason for Obama's red state caucus successes is the absence of voters, not the presence of new ones. I'm reminded of a tornado that tears through a landscape and can exert tremendous force, but when the motion slows, it vanishes, leaving nothing but destruction behind it."

On topic in the sense that the mechanics of the dem primaries, which award lopsided weight to some states more than others is also a real story that gets precious little attention. The whole post should be read , natch.

The media is a corporate entity, and its only crime is to dish up what the people ultimately want to shovel down their throats.

Hillary has certainly had the roughest ride, but economically that isn't surprising. Just shy of 50% of the electorate absolutely hate her, and another 25% are looking for a reason to hate her. There is absolutely no incentive to rein in this behaviour.

There is a solution, and I think there are certain elements in the pro media that would like to go back to that objective style of reporting. But this can only work if this style can compete in the current American Idol market. To put all this in context, even the BBC in the UK has largely abandoned its claim to true independence and objectivity. This isn't just an American problem, it's global.

BTW, one of the worst offenders of this knee-jerk bias has been the blogosphere. Poison drums up hits far better than reason, we all know that.

At the end of the day I think it's a waste of time appealing to the pro media to change these trends. Somehow - and I'm as flummoxed as anyone as to the nature of the solution - the wider audience has to be convinced that it holds the key to turning this trend around. That's probably the easy part. The hard part is convincing them (I mean us, basically) to actually do something about it.

My research is a bit thin on the reason for the ratings decline, but I've heard anecdotally that it seems to correlate with a rise in popularity of blogs and non-mainstream news sources. Actually, for right wing news I'm pretty sure there is solid evidence to that effect.

Part of the draw to blogs is certainly the opinion rather than objective style, and of course the ability to contribute to or challenge that opinion. The mainstream media has attempted to compete with this, although as you say, not necessarily successfully.

Thing is, few of us "like" inflammatory, subjective reporting, but we are nevertheless certainly attracted to it. The old car wreck analogy fits nicely. So I still maintain that we are ultimately getting what we want; it might not be what we think we want, but it's certainly what our behaviors indicate we want.

If there is a substantial swing in the public demand back towards objectivity, I think both main and alternative news sources will adapt accordingly. As it is, flaming the bejayus out of one's opponents is simply too alluring for many of us. Perhaps the novelty will wear off. I hope so. But change in this case has to be bottom up, IMHO.