Big Media Tries to Discern Reality Or: The Blogoverse for Dummies

At first glance, three uproars that buffeted American politics in recent weeks have little in common.

Former congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.) ended his political career over sexually charged e-mails to former House pages. Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) stumbled over his puzzling use of the word "macaca" and his clumsy response to revelations about his Jewish ancestry. Former president Bill Clinton had a televised temper fit when an interviewer challenged his terrorism record.

All three episodes, however, were in their own ways signs of the unruly new age in American politics. Each featured an arresting personal angle. Each originally percolated in the world of new media -- Web sites and news outlets that did not exist a generation ago -- before charging into the traditional world of newspapers and television networks. In each case, the accusations quickly pivoted into a debate about the motivations and alleged biases of the accusers. [Link.]

Allow me to break it down for Big Media. In no particular order:

You have the web, with all that fine info flying around, waiting to be found.

You have, of course, the bloggers, people interested in the info.

Then you have Big Media, who severely restricts and constrains their reporters. It's good old free market censorship. Which the blogoverse just doesn't have at present.

And let's put it this way: Anyone who relies on Big Media for news without any referencing of relevant blogs is just some sort of dope.