Children of a Lesser Blog

Hat tip to durrati, over in the My Left Wing version, for finding this picture for me The title of this post is based on a comment by Madscientist in Maryscott O'Connor's essay A Lesser Blogger: Or, You Don't Count--he noted that personally, he didn't find it all that bad to be "children of a lesser blog". I liked the turn of a phrase, so I decided to use it--in a tongue in cheek way--as the title of this post. I certainly do not consider My Left Wing to be a "lesser" blog. And I'm proud of the dedication and independent spirit that is displayed by we, the many, who are not "top tier" bloggers. Maryscott's essay was written in response to a Media Matters piece by Eric Boehlert, entitled Wash. Post still blind to liberal blogger successes. Mr. Boehlert does make some valid points--for example, comparing how often the Post quotes or mentions by name, liberal versus conservative bloggers. But things go downhill when he starts in on his hymn (How Great Thou Art) to Markos/Daily Kos... To this day, the Washington Post has never profiled Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of The Daily Kos, the most popular and influential political weblog in the world. The Post didn't even review last year's influential Crashing the Gate, the hardcover progressive manifesto that Kos co-wrote with fellow blogging pioneer Jerome Armstrong. ...and hit bottom with his sneeringly dismissive description of the Post's front page profile of Maryscott O'Connor. The piece certainly had its negative aspects, but I think Boehlert mischaracterizes it. And a big part of his point seems to be that the newspaper profiled a "lesser known" liberal blogger rather than the well known, but not at all liberal Markos Moulitsas. You can contact Media Matters through this link. (Adapted from the Media Matters recommendations for contacting the media) Please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding Eric Boehlert's commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like Media Matters to do differently in the future. I've been on Media Matters' mailing list for some time now. I believe they do good work, and I share their action items and alerts as time permits. Even if I'm a *much* lesser known blogger, I believe that doing whatever little bit we can do *matters*. Finding out that Duncan Black (aka Atrios, the founder of Blogroll Amnesty Day) was a Senior Fellow at Media Matters gave me pause, but I thought it was unfair to let that one thing bias me against the organization. But Boehlert's piece was another clue that this media watchdog organization endorses and upholds the unspoken (well, among the "cool kids" it's unspoken...) caste system among bloggers. And, I'm sorry, but that's just not cool. I'm not too excited about the notion of crowning *new* royalty to replace the high and mighty media people once they are de-throned. I'm much more interested in building *geniune* people power--that benefits *all* the people.

Whatsoever you do to the least of these bloggers

This comment by wu ming got me thinking about something. It's not that I begrudge top bloggers their success, it's just that a bit of humility and graciousness can go a long way. The truth is, some people, in addition to whatever talent and effort they employ, really do get some lucky breaks. And I think the *right* thing to do when you get one of those lucky breaks is to use that opportunity to do some good, especially for the people who often have no voice. And I don't mean "little bloggers", but the people we often try to stand up for, even if it's not profitable, popular, or convenient. So, with apologies to the author(s) of the Gospel of Matthew... "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; receive your reward, the kingdom prepared for you with big comfy chairs, high speed internet. And free maid service, delivery of groceries, and state-of-the-art spam blockers. For I was a "z-list" blogger and you linked to my essay, I was an unknown in blogtopia, and you blogrolled me anyway. When I wrote stories about Darfur, election integrity, and racial and gender inequality, you said these were important issues, and helped them get the exposure they needed and deserved. Then the righteous will answer him, 'OMG! When did we link to your essay or blogroll you? We're *sure* we would remember doing that! And for that matter, when did we help you draw attention to those sorts of stories? The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these bloggers, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into an eternity with Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly. And using a computer that crashes a dozen times a day. On a dialup connection. For I was an unknown blogger and you ignored me. I was a "C-list blogger" and you said you wanted to shoot me in the face. I posted about the issues I considered most important, you refused to give them airtime. And *then* you called me "fraudster" and "dirty hippy". They also will answer, "WTF? When did we call you names or bury those stories, or say we wanted to go all Cheney on you?" He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these bloggers, you did not do for me.'

Tell us about your childhood, Duncan

I'm confused. Atrios, aka Duncan, is *far* too important to even acknowledge the existence of the mere mortals of the blogging world. Yet he does. He saw fit to write about my "I can't believe it's not a meritocracy" post, although I didn't know it until Maryscott posted about what he'd said. And today I find out from skippy that he popped off a one liner about Terrance's thoughtful post which delved into the psychology/sociology of the linking issue, blogger caste system, etc. Interesting. Veeeery interesting. Why should it matter to Duncan if some nobodies are saying stuff about him in their puny, insignificant, non-blogroll-worthy corners of cyberspace? I decided to consult some professionals. I tried asking this guy, but he wasn't much help. Duncan Black? Sorry--name doesn't ring a bell for me.... Alfred Adler thought the behavior was evidence of an inferiority complex. John Watson said that was a load of poppycock. But he wasn't surprised that one of Freud's followers would come up with such nonsense. He said that Duncan's anger was clearly a conditioned emotional reaction. And while we were on that subject, Watson wanted me to remind everyone really *did* have every intention of curing the experimentally induced phobia of that little Albert kid. And he would have, too, if Albert's mom hadn't freaked out and disappeared with the boy. Albert Bandura thought it had something to do with observational learning. Typical Bandura. But you never know--could be some backstory to the classic study that I'd never heard of before. Maybe Bobo made the June Cleaver-looking lady angry when he dissed her ideas about "blogroll amnesty". So naturally she felt compelled to beat the crap out of him. And when the little kids saw her do that, well, "monkey see, monkey do". Albert Maslow didn't know for sure, but he was pretty clear on the fact that people who are truly self actualized don't engage in such dickish behavior on a regular basis. And speaking of dicks, I thought I should round out this imaginary discussion by checking in with someone who always seemed to be thinking about them. Hey! Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar! Sorry, Sig. I probably have some aggressive feelings towards you because of all that misogynistic crap you subjected us to over the years and I'm sublimating, or something. Oh, you don't mind if I call you Sig, do you? 'Course not. You're dead. And I'm making all of this up. But if we were able to ask Sigmund Freud about why Duncan gets so upset when he learns that the peasants are speaking his name in tones other than awe and reverence, what might he say? Maybe he'd explain it as an overactive id. Or maybe he'd say Duncan is identifying with his father--a healthy outcome of the phallic stage. Or that the behavior is some form of defense mechanism. Maybe some people are just schmucks and you shouldn't spend too much time worrying about them. Huh? Who said that? Was that you, Sig? No wait--that was me! But that makes a lot of sense. I really should listen to me more often...